Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- ‘No misconduct here’: Author defends addendum that sleuth says is ‘inadequate’
- Journal let authors make undisclosed changes that masked stolen content in paper
- Chemist in Japan up to 40 retractions, earning him a spot on our leaderboard
- Exclusive: Cancer researcher sues MD Anderson over misconduct finding
- Embattled journal Cureus halts peer reviewer suggestions
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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):
- Lawyer suing to get long-criticized, decades-old Paxil paper retracted.
- Researchers find “most retracted documents in the last decade have negligible scholarly impact.”
- “Making Your Research Free May Cost You.”
- “Bioengineered has been targeted by paper mills”: Sleuths’ critique published in journal they were sleuthing.
- “AI tool labels more than 1000 journals for ‘questionable,’ possibly shady practices.”
- “Wired and Business Insider remove ‘AI-written’ freelance articles.”
- “Stem cell scandal: prison for one surgeon, pay bonus for another.”
- Scientist accused of trying to steal “proprietary cancer-related research and take it to China.”
- JAMA editors on AI in peer review: “We are beginning to explore the potential benefits of different approaches to applying AI in the editorial and peer review processes with the aims of improving efficiency, preserving fairness, minimizing risks, and promoting integrity and quality of scientific publication.”
- “Trump’s executive orders put science’s reliability at risk.”
- “What the Death of Letters to the Editor Means for Oncology.”
- “Geographical diversity of peer reviewers shapes author success,” say researchers.
- “Gold standard science isn’t gold standard if it’s applied selectively”: Firearms injuries and autism research.
- “When the same individuals from a particular NGO are largely responsible for authoring, editing, and reviewing content, it undermines the objectivity and credibility of the scholarly publishing process,” researcher says.
- Trump administration “rolls back rules meant to keep politics out of climate research.”
- “ORCID launched more than a decade ago, but has yet to fulfil its potential.”
- “AI-generated scientific hypotheses lag human ones when put to the test,” say researchers.
- “Tenured scientists in the US slow down and produce less impactful work, finds study.”
- Researchers propose a “ranking-based sanction framework” for top researchers with retractions.
- “Editors and researchers weigh the impact” of Nature’s announcement they will publish peer reviews with papers.
- “NIH Publisher Fee Cap Plan ‘Not Comprehensive Enough,’ Critics Say.”
- “How stupid has science been?” asks bioethicist Arthur Caplan.
- “Make all research data available for AI learning,” and “AI can’t learn from what researchers don’t share.”
Upcoming Talks
- “Future Proof Your Research With Rigor” featuring our Ivan Oransky (Sept. 8, Philadelphia)
- “Doctors’ Lounge“: An evening “examining the quality control challenges that we all face in our quest to stay current as medical practitioners” featuring our Ivan Oransky (September 29, virtual)
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].