If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Study by Duke’s Dan Ariely retracted after sleuths find signs of data tampering
- Journal retracts paper claiming network of corridors inside the Great Pyramid of Giza
- Oxford researchers retract Nature paper on ‘atmospheric thirst’ for calculation errors
In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 67,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is approaching 700, and our mass resignations list has more than 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):
- “The AI ‘Ghosts’ Contaminating Academic Publishing,” based on a preprint finding LLMs generate fictional names working in teams and documenting the effects in scholarly repositories.
- “Fraud Law Whistleblowers Are Constitutional, Appeals Court Rules.” Attorneys feared the challenge could chill reporting of research fraud.
- “China launches largest-ever academic misconduct crackdown,” calling out over 40 researchers in a report after “Student Geng” scrutiny.
- “Autism-Vaccine Researcher Says He Stole $1M in CDC Grant Funds.”
- “Intellectual squatting“: A statistician at the University of Chicago “Has Written Over 200 Academic Papers in 2026 (so far),” many of which have now been removed from a preprint site.
- “Jason Arday accuser’s hiring questioned by academics months ago.” He was given a “three-month teaching ban but can continue research.”
- “Upcoming Fraud Trial of Asthma Researchers Echoes Other Cases; Are Studies Continuing?”
- Sage Open Medicine adds a publisher’s note, removes the expression of concern RFK Jr. questioned on a vaccine study.
- The U.S. Department of Commerce “quietly cut language banning political interference from the department’s scientific integrity policy.”
- “Ready for the robot reviewers? As AI’s capabilities grow, researchers and publishers are exploring how it can support peer review—and where it still falls short.”
- Authors raise questions about “the thoroughness and impartiality of misconduct investigations” in Finland.
- “Francesca Gino Tells Court Harvard ‘Tries To Completely Sidestep’ The Central Question In Her Case.”
- “‘Elite capture’ of top journals prompts ‘gatekeeping’ concerns.”
- BMC journal retracted a paper months after inadvertently naming sleuth in correction.
- Researcher apologizes, says he no longer has confidence in several of his articles after a new paper found he underestimated replication rates.
- “Editors and research articles: a retrospective study of self-publication in biomedical research.”
- “Stop paying predatory publishers of academic journals”: Researchers propose a policy “to restore scientific integrity and transparency.“
- “AI policies are repeating every mistake of plagiarism policies.”
- “Academic publishers must not get stuck in ‘war of AI against AI’, STM chief exec warns.”
- “New Guidelines Created for Publishing Indigenous Data.”
- “Women make up less than one-fifth of last authorships in elite journals,” analysis finds.
- “Peer Review at Capacity: An editor’s view.”
- “Editorial Conflicts of Interest in Elite Peer Review”: A peer-reviewed version of a preprint on relationships between authors and handling editors at business journals.
- “Who is responsible when AI helps to write science?”
- “Behind the Veil of Journal Editing.”
- Satirical Ig Nobel Prize in biology awarded to paper on snake stepping that was retracted last year.
Upcoming Talk
- “Covering Fraud and Misconduct: Lessons from the Retraction Beat” by our Kate Travis (October 8, 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].