Retraction Watch Staff

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

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

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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

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):

$900,000 grant to Retraction Watch’s parent organization will fund forensic analysis of articles that affect human health

The Center for Scientific Integrity, the parent nonprofit of Retraction Watch, has launched a new initiative to investigate and rapidly disseminate problems in the medical literature that directly affect human health.

Thanks to a $900,000 grant from Open Philanthropy, the Medical Evidence Project will leverage the tools of forensic metascience — using visual and computational methods to determine a paper’s trustworthiness — to rapidly identify problems in scientific articles, combined with the experience and platform of Retraction Watch to disseminate those findings.

“We originally set up The Center for Scientific Integrity as a home for Retraction Watch, but we always hoped we would be able to do more in the research accountability space,” said Ivan Oransky, executive director of the Center and cofounder of Retraction Watch. “The Medical Evidence Project allows us to support critical analysis and disseminate the findings.”

Weekend reads: MAHA report cites nonexistent studies; RFK Jr. threatens publishing access; can ‘zombie papers’ be killed?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

‘More of the same’: Journals, trade website refuse to correct critiques of book on Alzheimer’s fraud
Meet David Robert Grimes and Mariana Ribeiro, the first two Retraction Watch Sleuths in Residence
IQ study retracted in fallout from decades-old misconduct report. See our previous coverage
Paper on “wokeness” and mental health retracted for political reasons, authors say

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

Meet the first two Retraction Watch Sleuths in Residence

We are thrilled to announce that David Robert Grimes and Mariana Ribeiro will join the Retraction Watch team as Sleuths in Residence starting June 1.

Earlier this year we announced the Sleuth in Residence Program, an opportunity for active sleuths to have a secure and paid position while working closely with our research team on specific projects, and with our journalism team to publish their findings. Our goal is to build capacity in this space to emphasize the value of compensating and protecting the critical work of sleuths.

We’re pleased to be able to bring on two Sleuths in Residence as part of this effort.

Weekend reads: French agency’s research director sanctioned; AI data woes at MIT; is disruptive science over?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Scopus indexed a journal with a fake editorial board and a sham archive. When we asked them about it, they removed it.
Can a better ID system for authors, reviewers and editors reduce fraud? STM thinks so.
Correction finally issued seven years after authors promise fix ‘as soon as possible.’
Researchers to pull duplicate submission after reviewer concerns and Retraction Watch inquiry.
Genentech authors flip PNAS study from corrected to retracted following Retraction Watch coverage.

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

Weekend reads: MIT rescinds support of AI paper; should AI write science papers, anyway?; another pub steps in for paused NIH journal

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

How do retractions impact researchers’ career paths and collaborations? A Q&A with the study’s authors
Clarivate to stop counting citations to retracted articles in journals’ impact factors
Dozens of Elsevier papers retracted over fake companies and suspicious authorship changes
Paper with duplicated images retracted four months after concerns were raised
Scopus indexed a journal with a fake editorial board and a sham archive. When we asked them about it, they removed it

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

Weekend reads: Majorana manipulation allegations; Norway’s most-published researcher committed misconduct; ‘second chance’ for convicted Harvard chemist

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

‘Now is not the time to fade’: Retraction Watch awarded Council of Science Editors’ highest honor
A ‘stupid mistake’: EPA researcher added their underage child as an author on manuscript
Journal collected $400,000 for papers that it later retracted
Web of Science delists bioengineering journal in wake of paper mill cleanup
Journal investigating placebo effect study following Retraction Watch inquiry

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

Weekend reads: Journal halts submissions, citing NIH cuts; rejected paper published by ‘mistake’; feds cancel grant amid misconduct allegations

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

University of Toronto should take action on flawed breast screening study, says longtime critic
Experiment using AI-generated posts on Reddit draws fire for ethics concerns
AI-Reddit study leader gets warning as ethics committee moves to ‘stricter review process’
Why has it taken more than a year to correct a COVID-19 paper?
A Ph.D. in paper mills?
Former cancer researcher who sued university for discrimination hits 35 retractions

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 58,000 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: