Weekend reads: Citation cartels; a history of scientific integrity; another Nobelist retracts a paper
Credibility will always be everything.
Weekend reads: Citation cartels; a history of scientific integrity; another Nobelist retracts a paper
Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
KPMG government report on research integrity makes up reference involving Retraction Watch founders
Cancer paper earns expression of concern nearly two years after investigation report is revealed
Editorial board members resign from obstetrics journal to protest handling of allegations
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 47,000 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?
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
“The dark world of ‘citation cartels.'”
“Virtues and vocation: An historical perspective on scientific integrity in the twenty-first century.”
Another Nobelist retracts a paper.
University of Pennsylvania pays back $1.7 million after misconduct.
“Dentist José Luis Calvo Guirado joins the top 20 scientists whose studies have been retracted.”
“Didier Raoult and his institute found fame during the pandemic.” Then critics dug in.
“Science integrity sleuths welcome legal aid fund for whistleblowers.”
“Science, integrity and ethics: a survey reveals the concerns of Inserm researchers.”
“Alzheimer’s scientist to correct two papers because of data inconsistencies.”
“Analysis of justification for and gender bias in author order among those contributing equally.”
“Two Canadian scientists were fired in 2021 for passing information to China.”
“How to avoid being duped by predatory journals.
“Whistleblower’s decades long fight to save patients from dangerous research.”
“Fake academic papers are on the rise: why they’re a danger and how to stop them.”
“Publish and perish: New issues in publication ethics.” Or not so new.
“Nature publishes too few papers from women researchers — that must change.”
“Scientists are already using image-generating models to jazz up papers and presentations. But some say these tools could harm research.”
“Generative artificial intelligence and scientific publishing: urgent questions, difficult answers.”
“U.K. science minister pays damages to researcher she accused of airing ‘extremist’ views.”
“Influencers on social media may cite VAERS data as evidence supporting misinformed conclusions about vaccine safety.”
“MeToo paper investigated as academic threatens legal action: Article on MeToo movement in Iran named researcher, who denies wrongdoing, as ‘serial abuser.’”
“Who is at fault when people fake scientific research?”
“Incorrectly conducted statistical analyses appear to be one of the primary factors propagating misinformation, including skepticism toward vaccinations.”
“Emerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg?”
“Who fakes cancer research? Apparently, lots of people.”
“Columbia University Hospital DEI Chief Is Serial Plagiarist, Complaint Alleges.”
“Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.”
Could Springer Nature try for yet another IPO — its fourth attempt?
“The super league of Top Italian Scientists.”
“Danish publishing house shreds freelancer’s book after plagiarism – gives money back to all customers.”
“China has a list of suspect journals and it’s just been updated.” An interview.
“Digital Scholarly Journals Are Poorly Preserved: A Study of 7 Million Articles.”
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 team@retractionwatch.com.