Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Cardiology researcher in Italy up to 17 retractions, most for duplication
- Authors asked Elsevier to retract papers in 2012. In the case of one paper, they’re still waiting
- Hive mindfulness: Sleuths’ advice leads to retraction of paper on social connection
- Top education researcher goes to court over plagiarism claims, university review
- PLOS One slaps four papers with expressions of concern for overlapping control data
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 60,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List?
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- “ChatGPT tends to ignore retractions on scientific papers,” study finds.
- Researchers, including Jennifer Byrne and Anna Abalkina, suggest rethinking peer review by using the “Swiss Cheese Model to Better Flag Problematic Manuscripts.”
- “What counts as plagiarism? AI-generated papers pose new risks.”
- “Top Researchers May Suppress More Information Than They Provide.” Read what Richard Phelps has previously written for us.
- “Bogus research papers are damaging scientific research”: A radio segment featuring contributing editor Frederik Joelving discussing our investigation for The Conversation.
- Governor “expects swift action” by university if plagiarism allegations against president are true.
- Engineering professor finds he is “sole author of a study he did not write.”
- “Image fraud in nuclear medicine research appears to be relatively prevalent,” say researchers, who find nearly 40% of the scientists they surveyed witnessed their colleagues participating in misconduct.
- “The lead scientist on a globally-significant Aboriginal rock art project claimed a [Western Australia] WA government agency put a ‘very rosy spin’ on his team’s scientific results.”
- “Why Don’t Medicinal Chemists from Industry Publish Anymore?” Because “there is very little time for authorship.”
- “Researchers suggest one-a-year publication limit.”
- “How do we conduct research on a country where data are often unavailable or of questionable quality?”
- How to “spot the telltale signs of shoddy studies”: Reflecting on RFK Jr.’s pick David Geier‘s track record with vaccine research.
- Survey of U.S. doctoral faculty members finds “the most reliant indicator of knowledge regarding predatory journals is the number of articles recently published.”
- “End the unchecked growth of publishing fees and the overreliance on unpaid peer review.”
- Study finds AI is better than experts at differentiating between human- and AI-written stroke papers.
- “The Prestige Monopoly Driving Scientific Publishing Extortion.”
- “Even honest research results can flip – a new approach to assessing robustness in the social sciences.”
- “New publishing models will only work if authors embrace them,” says Dorothy Bishop.
- “I fear your beloved Google Scholar is heading straight for this graveyard, and academia is not prepared.”
- “AI for Scientific Integrity: Detecting Ethical Breaches, Errors, and Misconduct in Manuscripts.”
- “Scientific fraud has become an industry. And it’s growing faster than legitimate peer-reviewed science journals can keep up with.”
- “AI Writing Disclosures Are a Joke. Here’s How to Improve Them.”
- Peer review system is “creaking, even almost on the verge of collapse,” says researcher.
- Gambling research center criticized “amid fears researchers will be asked to tackle topics that play into the betting industry’s hands.”
- “The attribution of two portraits of Rembrandt revisited: a replication study in art history.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].