Retraction Watch Staff

Weekend reads: Retraction Watch’s 15th birthday; ‘the superstar scientist’ who faked data; sleuths vs. integrity officers on handling misconduct

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Frontiers to retract 122 articles linked to “unethical” network, says there are thousands more
27-year-old Nature paper earns expression of concern
Noticed: Sleuths are starting to get credit for retractions
AI research journal with sham board, metrics holds researcher’s paper hostage
Happy 15th anniversary, Retraction Watch

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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):

Happy 15th anniversary, Retraction Watch

Once upon a time, a long time ago, two science journalists had an idea for a blog about retractions. And on Aug. 3, 2010, Retraction Watch launched, detailing in the first post why retractions matter.

And now, 15 years and 6,700 posts later, that work seems more important than ever.

We are gratified every day to see Retraction Watch driving the conversation on integrity in scientific research. Our work has provided the foundation for stories on mass resignations at journals, how fake phrases end up in the literature, the retraction of a paper claiming evidence for an ancient comet with Biblical ties. We’ve gotten shoutouts in Science, which included links to our stories as examples for scientists of how to respond constructively to critiques of their work, and in Nature, which urged universities to examine their own retraction data.

Weekend reads: Science retracts ‘arsenic life’ paper; another journal issue on Palestine cancelled; JAMA, NEJM editors decry political interference

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Microbiome company CEO who linked COVID vaccine to bacterial decline now has four retractions
Misconduct investigation at U.S. military university uncovers image duplication
After 15 years of controversy, Science retracts ‘arsenic life’ paper. More coverage from Science, Nature, The New York Times, Scientific American, and The Hindu.
Reviewer accused of stealing manuscript and publishing it as his own denies he refereed it
Panel upholds results of contested U Toronto mammography study

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

Weekend reads: India institutes face penalties for retractions; editors resign after publisher sold; should the Tuskegee Study be retracted?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

University dean’s attempt to correct a paper turns into a retraction
Wake Forest cancer lab blames ‘honest mistakes’ for retractions
Springer Nature to retract machine learning book after our coverage
‘Biased’ and ‘unethical’: Journal objects to Scopus delisting
Director of Cambridge toxicology institute retracts paper for potential image manipulation

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

Weekend reads: Western publishing at a ‘breaking point’; NIH to cap publisher fees; sleuths say their work is being ‘weaponized’

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Viral paper on black plastic kitchen utensils earns second correction
Harvard researcher’s work faces scrutiny after $39 million private equity deal
When it comes to conflicts of interest, affiliations are apparently no smoking gun
Do you need informed consent to study public posts on social media?
Retraction for ‘unsound’ analysis was ‘disproportionate and discouraging,’ author says

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

Weekend reads: Problematic papers prompt submission pause; HHS walks back Springer Nature cancellation; and hidden prompts for positive peer reviews

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-up citations.
Do men or women retract more often? A new study weighs in.
Chinese basic research funding agency penalizes 25 researchers for misconduct.
Remembering Mario Biagioli, who articulated how scholarly metrics lead to fraud.

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

Weekend reads: Trump cuts funding for Springer Nature pubs; another nonexistent study for HHS; what RFK Jr. got right about academic publishing

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

COPE integrity officer loses 22-year-old paper for image concerns
Slovak science academy ‘strictly condemns’ government official’s paper on mRNA vaccines
Guest post: In defense of direct replication studies (if they even need defending)
Swedish regulators drop investigations into Chalmers’ prosthetics lab
Science issues correction on a paper after repeat experiments and misconduct finding

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

Weekend reads: Nobel Prize winners and retractions; Nature to publish peer reviews automatically; ‘AI or Die’?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

When PubMed got it right, Elsevier got it wrong, and Retraction Watch helped clear it up
Springer Nature psycholinguistics journal retracts over a dozen articles for authorship, peer review issues
Journal corrects nearly 100 papers after authors fail to disclose they are on the editorial board
Citation issues cost these 20 journals their impact factors this year
Editors won’t retract talc and cancer article J&J says is false in court

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

Weekend reads: Journals are MAGA’s ‘latest target’; a psychedelic retraction; professor sues rival over plagiarism accusations

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Journal tells author its retracting three papers for concept that ‘violates’ law of thermodynamics
Apparent NCI director candidate wants ‘open, respectful’ post-publication peer review while promoting anonymous site that calls sleuths a ‘mob’
Paper rejected for AI, fake references published elsewhere with hardly anything changed

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

Weekend reads: A university ‘integrity index’; surgeon falsely claims Harvard Ph.D.; more on ‘gold standard science’ executive order

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

NIH-funded replication studies are not the answer to the reproducibility crisis in pre-clinical research
$900,000 grant to Retraction Watch’s parent organization will fund forensic analysis of articles that affect human health. A link to Nature’s coverage
‘Anyone can do this’: Sleuths publish a toolkit for post-publication review
Fourth retraction for Italian scientist comes 11 years after sleuths flagged paper
10 years after the downfall of a same-sex marriage canvassing study, tenure, some better practices — and an engagement

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 59,000 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 — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: