Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 48,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 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):
- A dean of engineering in Nevada is out following allegations about “bizarre publishing” and plagiarism in a grant report.
- “Making Sense of Retractions and Tackling Research Misconduct.”
- “One Scientist Neglected His Grant Reports. Now U.S. Agencies Are Withholding Grants for an Entire University.”
- “Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill.”
- PLOS ONE retracts a paper with clear but undisclosed evidence of ChatGPT use. Nearly 100 such papers here.
- “Dana-Farber retracts string of studies in systematic review of data integrity.”
- “Errors, omissions, potential bias: Why some ME experts are calling for a retraction of the NIH intramural study.”
- “Researchers need ‘open’ bibliographic databases, new declaration says.”
- “Congress pushes NIH to review reproducibility and ‘near-misses.’”
- “Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts.”
- “US COVID-origins hearing puts scientific journals in the hot seat.”
- “2 top Chinese academics named and shamed by graft-busters for ‘saying hello.’
- “Arise robot overlords! A synergy of artificial intelligence in the evolution of scientific writing and publishing.”
- Perceptions of research integrity in three different European countries: Estonia, France, and Spain.
- “Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.”
- “Hyper-ambition and the Replication Crisis: Why Measures to Promote Research Integrity can Falter.”
- “Make peer review great (again?)“
- “Our ‘publish-or-perish’ culture is breaking the academy.”
- “The war on error: A new project seeks to root out fraud in academia.”
- “A Study on the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Research Integrity among Medical Professionals in Ningxia, China.”
- “How Should We Fund Scientific Error Detection?” asks sleuth James Heathers. “I have a place to start.”
- “‘A Mess’: Harvard Med School Professor Plagiarized in Expert Report, Judge Says.”
- “Revealed: the ten research papers that policy documents cite most.”
- “Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.”
- “Structure peer review to make it more robust.”
- “Journals and publishers facing issues from fraudulent sites.”
- A doctor who took on drug companies and publishers has died.
- “The Replication Database: Documenting the Replicability of Psychological Science.”
- “To figure out whether an accusation of plagiarism is serious, apply the counterfactual test.”
- “Mistakes and misconduct in science are not synonymous; there are remedies for both.”
- “There Are Mistakes, And There Are Mistakes.”
- “Whistleblower professor accused of ‘serious misconduct’ sues Sydney Uni.”
- “Should researchers use AI to write papers? Group aims for community-driven standards.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Waiting for the investigation