Would you contemplate a donation to help Weekend Reads, and our every day work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
Our checklist of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is as much as greater than 300. There are greater than 39,000 retractions in our database — which powers retraction alerts in EndNote, LibKey, Papers, and Zotero. And have you ever seen our leaderboard of authors with probably the most retractions these days — or our checklist of prime 10 most extremely cited retracted papers?
Right here’s what was occurring elsewhere (a few of these gadgets could also be paywalled, metered entry, or require free registration to learn):
- “On 9 March, 29 eLife editors — including the journal’s former editor-in-chief, Randy Schekman — wrote …asking that Eisen be replaced ‘immediately’.”
- “‘Ashamed to Put My Name to It’: Monsanto, Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, and the Use of Fraudulent Science, 1969–1985.”
- “Thanks to generative AI, catching fraud science is going to be this much harder.”
- “[P]eer review has been widely considered to be a form of quality assurance, yet today, it is the subject of considerable debate, given its (also widely recognized) shortcomings.”
- “From Cats to Chatbots: How Non-Humans Are Authoring Scientific Papers.”
- “Retractions relevant to COVID-19: does the retraction rate jump during the pandemic?”
- “Science journalism put to the test of ‘all covid’ news and the scientific method.”
- “Complaint related to research misconduct, animal abuse filed against the University of North Dakota.”
- “The multiple uses of peer review: an interview with Marcel LaFlamme.”
- “Most notably, the committee’s report calls for researchers to scrap the term ‘race’ itself in most studies…”
- “Our analysis confirms that when bibliometric indicators are integrated into systems of incentives, they are capable of affecting rapidly and visibly the citation behavior of entire countries.”
- “Responsible Conduct of Research – Preparedness for Times of Crisis.”
- “’How did this get published in PNAS?’” My response: ‘effectively, PNAS just isn’t journal.’”
- “Brain imaging do-over offers clues to field’s replication problem.” (Spectrum, on this examine.)
- “U.S. government agencies may have been double billed for projects in Wuhan, China, records indicate; probe launched.”
- “Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.”
- “Is our current review process, which is generally the same for most journals, outdated?”
- “Overcoming the ‘ostrich effect.’”
- A 2009 examine of homosexuality and little one abuse earns an expression of concern however “should be retracted.”
- “Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved.”
- “When multiple generations of academics have internalised the imperative to ‘publish or perish’, how will they respond to a technology which promises to automate significant elements of this process?”
- “Quality questions as publisher’s growth challenges big players: Analysis shows Swiss publisher MDPI set up almost 56,000 special issues with a closing date in 2023.”
- “ACM’s pivotal role in the field of computing leads some to argue that ACM bears a responsibility to be more forthcoming about its findings of violations of its policies.”
- East Lansing Excessive Faculty “Principal Resigned Following Discovery of ‘Fraudulent Degree,’ Superintendent Says.”
- “Peer reviewers from Low- and Middle-Income Countries for open access journals in oncology can improve the equity in cancer research and clinical trials.”
- “The Right to Retract and the Danger of Retractions.”
Like Retraction Watch? You may make a tax-deductible contribution to help our work, comply with us on Twitter, like us on Fb, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our every day digest. In case you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you may tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e mail us at group@retractionwatch.com.
Associated
