We’ve been tracking retractions of papers about COVID-19 as part of our database. Here’s a running list, which will be updated as needed. (For some context on these figures, see this post, our letter in Accountability in Research and the last section of this Nature news article. Also see a note about the terminology regarding … Continue reading Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a researcher at Northwestern who’s up to five retractions; a … Continue reading Weekend reads: The scale of misconduct in China; toxic peer reviews; license to publish?; an editorial revolt
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at how likely it is for researchers who … Continue reading Weekend reads: Unauthorized vaccine trial leads to criminal investigation; outrage over a skeleton study; how much plagiarism is OK?
It’s clear science has a reproducibility problem. What’s less clear is how to address it. Recently, the U.S. National Institutes of Health awarded the Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) $2.34 million to train students in good experimental design (also covered by The Scientist). The first week begins June 2018 at Harvard Medical School. We spoke … Continue reading Lesson one: How to design a good experiment
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a much-discussed paper on using blockchain to prevent scientific misconduct, and a researcher who lost nine studies at once from a single journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Every year, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) issues a series of findings against researchers it has determined committed fraud of some kind. In contrast to many agencies such as the National Science Foundation and around the world, the ORI names the offender, describes the offense, and states the penalty – often a temporary … Continue reading ORI misconduct findings fell in 2016. Why? We ask the director
The week at Retraction Watch featured a discussion of why science has bigger problems than retractions, and a look at what happened when a journal decided to get tough on plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions as of May 23, 2025. Readers will see some familiar entries, such as the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines. You’ll … Continue reading Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers
The week at Retraction Watch began with news of a lawsuit against PubPeer commenters. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A bee researcher based in Congo has had two papers retracted, and a paper in Science corrected, for various reasons including unreliable data. The researcher, however, blames colonialism. M. B. Théodore Munyuli is at the National Center for Research in Natural Sciences, CRSN-Lwiro, D.S. Bukavu, Kivu, and studies the distribution and diversity of bees. Here’s the notice from … Continue reading Bee researcher in the Congo blames “injustice, segregation and colonialism” for retractions, Science correction