Are papers retracted often enough?; ‘What makes an undercover science sleuth tick?’; journals dominate prestige rankings – Retraction Watch

Wwould you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 253. There are more than 35,000 retractions in our database — which powers retraction alerts in EndNote, LibKey, Papers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers?

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

  • “Retractions are increasing, but not enough.” Our co-founder reflects in Nature.
  • “What makes an undercover science sleuth tick? Fake-paper detective speaks out.”
  • “Academic reputation ‘still driven by journal prestige’ – survey.”
  • “Journal Impact Factor ‘Great Leap Forward’, When Will Abuse End?” (China News Weekly)
  • “Retracted papers are used in clinical guidelines – how worried should we be?”
  • “A university on Monday cleared First Lady Kim Keon-hee of plagiarism…” And: “Professors condemn Kookmin University for clearing first lady of plagiarism allegations.”
  • “The University of Northern Iowa is defending its decision to discipline a professor who had previously been sanctioned for plagiarism.”
  • “Questionable Research Practices, Low Statistical Power, and Other Obstacles to Replicability: Why Preclinical Neuroscience Research Would Benefit from Registered Reports.”
  • “The High Court on Thursday declared illegal the Dhaka University’s syndicate decision to demote Samia Rahman from the position of associate professor to assistant professor for one year on a charge of plagiarism.”
  • “By investigating citation practices in a field that has traditionally been more accessible to female scientists…we demonstrate that gendered citation practices are mediated by author gender distribution, rather than being a universal pattern.”
  • “Davids versus Goliaths: Pharma and academia threats to individual scientists and clinicians.”
  • “The results above suggest that abstracts are very difficult to read; they are becoming more and more difficult than before; the abstract of the articles with more citations appear to be less readable.”
  • “Science leaders demand crackdown on medical research fraudsters after allegations that pivotal Alzheimer’s study contained manipulated data…”
  • Nearly 70% of 495 articles published by 50 university professors in the social sciences and humanities in Pakistan were in ‘predatory’ journals: Study.
  • “Research funders should be more transparent: a plea for open applications.”
  • “A lack of comprehension among some researchers about how to use ClinicalTrials.gov may be hindering public access to trial information…”
  • “Don’t be cruel: how to write a fair peer review report.”
  • “Astronaut Jessica Watkins Becomes First Person To Publish A Science Paper From Space.”
  • “On December 6, 2021, Phillip Magness sent a message to a generic email address monitored by the Office of the Dean of the Faculty. The email was overlooked, and the appropriate University officials did not learn of his allegations until this month.”
  • “Publish and flourish, or the collective wisdom of peer review.”
  • A look at retractions of papers from authors in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian nations.
  • “Top scientist admits ‘space telescope image’ was actually a slice of chorizo.”
  • Well, this is one way to add highlights to your paper.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our workfollow us on Twitterlike us on Facebookadd us to your RSS readeror subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our databaseyou can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button