If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Nature journal retracts two papers by immunology researchers for image duplication
- Gynecologists in Italy collect more retractions and an expression of concern
- Correction to a retraction highlights tortured phrases have been around longer than LLMs
- Porn addiction recovery group sues publisher, UCLA researcher over critical paper
- Publisher flags more than 120 papers three and a half years after learning of problems
In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 400 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 63,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is up to nearly 650, and our mass resignations list has 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- “Did a university professor invent a ‘Nobel Prize’ for himself?”
- Former medical school dean “omitted multimillion-dollar pharma ties in multiple publications.”
- News site retracts article on AI for fake quotations generated by AI.
- Researcher denounces new head of Albanian cyber security agency “for plagiarism in his doctoral thesis.”
- “Screening Crossref for integrity issues: Massive and longitudinal mining of publication metadata.”
- Researcher says AI detectors could “push scholars to flatten their writing.”
- “How AI slop is causing a crisis in computer science.”
- “China to punish universities that fail to sanction research misconduct.”
- “‘Retract papers based on flawed citations,’ urges integrity tsar.”
- Two authors who lost papers for compromised peer review discuss “mysterious” retractions.
- Researchers document the “trials and tribulations” of getting an oncology paper retracted. We covered the paper’s correction in 2024.
- “On the reliability and reproducibility of qualitative research.”
- “University steps in to rescue cherished literary journal.”
- “If progress is not to falter, students must be trained in open research.”
- Researchers find “statistically significant results are estimated to be one to two orders of magnitude more likely to enter the published record than null results” in social sciences.
- “Are AI Tools Killing Review Articles? Two Failure Modes Suggest Otherwise.”
- “Why India tops the charts in retracted health research papers.”
- “Could we get ahead of research integrity issues?”
- “200 guest faculties across Karnataka quit fearing probe into fake PhD/MPhil certificates.”
- “Beyond Retractions: Forensic Scientometrics Techniques to Identify Research Misconduct, Citation Leakage, and Funding Anomalies.”
- “Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors: A content analysis of journal policies.”
- Researchers look into the “role of errors in data-driven research and assess the extent to which a lack of a constructive error culture has been addressed across various research fields.”
- “Nanoscience is latest discipline to embrace large-scale replication efforts.”
- “Access Isn’t Trust: AI aggregation without accountability corrupts knowledge.”
- “Corrections as Risk Communication and Community Engagement on Social Media: How Observing Corrections of Misinformation from the WHO Increases Support for the WHO.”
- “The value of close replications and how to get more of them“: An interview with an author of a recent article on replication studies as “a win-win for early-career training and behavioral ecology.”
- “Can we use AI for academic writing? It depends.”
- “Indian university faces backlash for claiming Chinese robodog as own at AI summit.”
Upcoming Talks & Testimony
- “Governance and Accountability of Federal Science Policy and Institutions“: Our Ivan Oransky to testify to a Canadian Parliament committee on Feb. 23
- “Unsettled Minds“: The New Yorker’s Rachel Aviv in conversation with our Ivan Oransky (March 4, New York University & virtual)
- “Restoring Trust in Science: Storytelling, AI, and Integrity in Scholarly Publishing” featuring our Ivan Oransky (March 26, 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].