Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Papers continue to face retractions for failure to license pricy tool
- ‘Tin Man Syndrome,’ five other case studies retracted following Retraction Watch coverage
- Guest post: In the name of Scopus, one hijacked journal easily tricks authors
- New COPE retraction guidelines address paper mills, third parties, and more
- Iraqi university dean linked to paper mills has more than a dozen retractions
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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):
- “Europe’s largest paper mill? 1,500 research articles linked to Ukrainian network.”
- “If Trump wants to eliminate fraud at universities, why gut research integrity agencies?”
- Machine learning model flags almost 10 percent of cancer research literature as being paper mill papers.
- University in the Philippines launches investigation after faculty member “accused of unauthorized publication of a research paper and exploitation of student theses.”
- “‘i’d Like to Think I’d be Able to Spot one’: How Journalists Navigate Predatory Journals.”
- Professor “reflects on an alleged fraud” committed by Francesca Gino that “happened on his watch.”
- “Self-Plagiarism and Redundant Publications: A True Scientific Misconduct.”
- Researchers find “certain principles – openness, education, legality, and mutual respect – were violated” in scenarios with “AI-based research mentors.”
- Researchers propose the “ρ-Index: A New Metric to Valorize and Acknowledge the Peer-Review Process.”
- “Researchers in India worry about access amid Sci-Hub ban.”
- Researchers find “online training … boosted students’ perceptions of their authorship knowledge and confidence effectively navigating authorship conversations with collaborators.”
- Cochrane announces new tool to detect “problematic trials before they distort evidence.”
- “National Academies report outlines ways Trump administration could simplify research regulations.”
- “Why Canada is ill-equipped to tackle the growing threat of fake science.”
- Researchers say they were “scammed in our online qualitative study” by fake pharmacists and community health workers.
- “Researchers, academic institutions, and journals have an ethical obligation to correct the research record,” say lawyers.
- “Changes at NIH Give Political Appointees Greater Power To Fund or Block Research.”
- “Peer Review Paranoia: The system is built on trust between scholars. AI is undermining that.”
- Researcher digs into the etymology and origins of academic “sleuths.”
- “Scholarly Publishing Won’t Be Saved by Incremental Change.”
- “Trump called for ‘gold-standard science’: how the NIH, NSF and others are answering.”
- “Trump security crackdown risks undermining US collaboration, with China now said to be more concerned with protecting its own research than prying into others.”
- Non-financial conflicts of interest “determine how evidence is interpreted, whose voices are trusted and which interests prevail.”
- “Can we measure trust in scientific publications?”
- “I wish journals didn’t ask for [manuscript] revisions with tracked changes,” says ecologist.
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].