The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at publishing bounties around the world, and the story of how the “right to be forgotten” law had led to a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “Publishing in [fraudulent] journals is not a matter of academic freedom. Predatory publishers are frauds and criminals. To knowingly use them is to engage in fraudulent and criminal activity.” (Roger Watson, Times Higher Education)
- Spreadsheets are a big risk for mistakes in research, as a study finds most researchers don’t have their spreadsheets reviewed for errors. (Neuroskeptic, Discover)
- “We believe that reporting of suspected data fraud and integrity issues should be done more discretely [sic] and directly by the involved journal to protect honest authors from the stigma of being associated with potential fraud.” (Anesthesia & Analgesia)
- “I guess I’d like to think that it’s not mean to point out flaws in published work.” Andrew Gelman responds to a letter about how to best raise concerns about papers.
- “Given the lightning-rod nature of the voucher debate, will researchers compromise their ethics to be first to a particular finding?” (Beth Hawkins, The74Million.org)
- “Progress in this area will require the monolithic systems that editors use to manage the peer review process to improve drastically.” Andrew Preston on the future of peer review. (Scientific American)
- Does results-free peer review work? Saloni Krishnan gives her take.
- “Less than half of clinical trials published in leading nursing journals are officially registered,” reports Jo Stephenson. (Nursing Times)
- “The Telegram now believes the story to be a work of fiction, not genuine journalism, from a student enrolled in a journalism class.” A student impersonates his former teacher.
- A researcher of wolves says he’s been punished and silenced by his institution for questioning Washington state’s culling policies. (Lynda V. Mapes, Seattle Times)
- A prominent hospital director, and recipient of China’s highest medical research award has been accused (again) of plagiarizing his students’ work. (Fan Yiyang, Sixth Tone)
- “I’m very willing to put money down on the proposition that the first Fellows of the Royal Society grumbled to each other in private about that latest correspondence from so-and-so, which had those things in it that no one else seems to be able to get to work.” (Derek Lowe, In The Pipeline)
- Shaking up conferences with everything from revamped guidelines to emojis can bring more transparency, say a group of researchers. (Nature)
- Monsanto worked with outside consultants to publish “independent” reviews of its Roundup herbicide that declared its health effects minimal. (Peter Waldman, Tiffany Stecker, & Joel Rosenblatt, Bloomberg)
- Publishing unsuccessful self-replications can be a useful way to correct the record, but how can we make sure researchers aren’t using it to double-dip and improve their publishing CVs? (Rolf Zwaan)
- A 109-page investigation report originally obtained by Retraction Watch reveals new insights into the case of researcher Frank Sauer. (James Urquhart, Chemistry World)
- Advanced computerization stands to make research data even more valuable to the scientific process than published articles. And once again a series of little-noticed choices could determine how much universities pay for it.” (Paul Basken, The Chronicle of Higher Education)
- A newspaper ran a story using an anonymous source—and revealed his identity when they pulled the piece. (Sydney Smith, iMediaEthics)
- Eight doctors in India earn three-month suspensions seven years after they were involved in an unethical drug trial. (Vivek Triveldi, News18)
- “In fact, Arthroscopy actually detected a manuscript submitted to our journal citing retracted references. Needless to say, Arthroscopy did not accept the improper citation, and the Editors tip our hats to the reviewer who spotted the infraction.” (Arthroscopy)
- Public Citizen calls for the suspension of a blood transfusion study because they claim it fails to properly protect participants. (Larry Husten, MedPage Today)
- Tired of journal stings yet? A new ebook collects 13 papers that were meant to be unpublishable — and were published anyway. (Zen Faulkes, FigShare)
- “At some point, the system will simply break down: authors will opt for venues not requiring review or using some form of post-publication review.” (The Grumpy Geophysicist blog)
- Did God plagiarize the Bible’s Proverbs? A Nigerian musician thinks so. (Information Nigeria)
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].