Weekend reads: Spinal researcher gave patients ‘false hope’; HHS admits error in laying off top ethics official; Alzheimer’s fraud trial set to begin 

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• A review claimed a researcher was an expert in sex robots. He’s not
• Iraqi dean earns another retraction for paper posted for sale on Facebook
• Sleuth loses paper for duplicate publication after flagging hundreds of untrustworthy articles
• Controversial Paxil “Study 329” earns expression of concern after critic sues publisher
• Exclusive: Iraqi university forcing students to cite its journals to graduate

Did you know that Retraction Watch and the Retraction Watch Database are  projects of The Center of Scientific Integrity? Others include the Medical Evidence Project, the Hijacked Journal Checker, and the Sleuths in Residence Program. Help support this work.   

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “Investigation found UBC researcher fabricated data, gave spinal patients ‘false hope.'”
• Office for Human Research Protections director resigns, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services admits error in laying her off.
• “As his fraud trial looms, Alzheimer’s scientist is exonerated by his university—sort of.”
• Investigator found to have tampered with evidence during “lengthy legal battle against a Queensland medical researcher who was accused of fraud.”
• “More than 97% of electron microscope images remain unpublished.” A professor shares how he’s trying to save “the lost treasure.”
• Annual list of most cited scientists “reveals more cracks in Saveetha’s research.” Our coverage of the embattled university. 
• “The invisible orchestrator: How ChatGPT-5 redefines scientific reproducibility.”
• “The chemistry community should ban drawing chemical structures with generative AI, chemists warn.”
• “Low-quality papers are flooding the cancer literature — can this AI tool help to catch them?”
• “Top scientists flag corruption” in India’s university rankings, “urge overhaul of research metrics.”
• “Our reliance upon the impact factor is destroying public trust in science,” says the executive director of eLife.
• “AI bots wrote and reviewed all papers at this conference.”
• “The OpenAlex database in review: Evaluating its applications, capabilities, and limitations.”
• “Restoring integrity: tackling fraud and data manipulation in scientific research”: A webinar featuring Reese Richardson.
• “Calls Beckon for a Research Watchdog in India.”
• “Men-led papers receive more media coverage than women’s, new study finds.”
• “Rhetorical strategies for addressing retraction stigma in retraction notices.”
• Medical paper listing student as co-author “sparked a controversy” at “premier medical research body.”
• Two journal editors debate “over a recent submission, possibly extensively written using a large language model generative artificial intelligence.”
• “Open science must include effective results dissemination to study participants,” say researchers. 
• “Why Sorbonne pulled out of university ranking.”
• “Alternative explanations for a publication paradox with gold open access.”
• Researchers ask: “how did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the debate on open science?”
• “What an academic misconduct accusation taught me about sharing research,” writes civil engineering professor.
• “The Case for Expanding the Domain of Registered Reports: Confronting Academic Dishonesty and Declining Confidence in Science.”
• “Ethics, fraud, and bad practices in the research and publication of scientific articles” and theses at three universities in Peru. 
• “Brown, Browsers, Back-ends, Boards, Beards, and a Bibliography: A Festschrift in Honour of Geoffrey Bilder,” with an entry from our Ivan Oransky. 

Upcoming talks

• “How Should Institutions Respond to Allegations of Misconduct?” with our Ivan Oransky (October 27, 2025 Health Academy Conference, Washington, D.C.)
• “Retractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough,” with our Ivan Oransky (October 28, 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].