Shoddy commentaries flood journals; key hydroxychloroquine paper retracted; a researcher confesses – Retraction Watch

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our listing of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are greater than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you ever seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our listing 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 occurring elsewhere (a few of these objects could also be paywalled, metered entry, or require free registration to learn):

• How “a fast and soiled path to greater impression numbers—are on the rise.” Our investigation with Science.
• “Study retracted years after it set off an infamous COVID-19 treatment scandal.” It’s the second-most cited retracted paper ever.
• “It speaks higher of her that she self-identified what occurred than if she had pretended it didn’t occur.” A case of misconduct.
• “The Dirty Business of Monkey Laundering,” a documentary about analysis lab suppliers.
• “Japanese researchers stunned to study they co-authored papers with North Korean scientists.”
• Retired researcher David Bimler — aka Smut Clyde — “has launched into a second profession: exposing fraudulent research.”
• What would possibly tutorial publishing look like in 2030? 2035?
• “Will ChatGPT Get Tenure?”
• “Scholars Are Supposed to Say When They Use AI. Do They?”
• “My mind begins to die once I try to read a journal article.”
• “Leading international journals could face rising competition for submissions and readership from emerging Chinese titles.”
• “But if social scientists do not work arduous to examine that their conclusions are true, and do not restrict themselves to what may be justified on that foundation, they too are in the fake news business.”
• “Academic writing is getting more durable to learn—the humanities most of all.”
• “That’s why, in a dialogue paper printed this month, the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) argues that analysis misconduct investigations ought to, as far as possible, use neutral language.”
• “The errors are so apparent and important that editorial boards from JAMC and PNAS ought to retract each of those papers to forestall the additional misuse of a fatally flawed dataset” about losses from hurricane damage, argues Roger Pielke, Jr.
• “Can novelty scores on papers shift the power dynamics in scientific publishing?”
• “U.S. science funding businesses roll out insurance policies on free access to journal articles.”
• “How to share science with the general public when your research is secret.”
• “Research Misconduct within the Age” of AI. And the “Double-Edged Sword of AI in Research Misconduct.”
• “The Course Is About Literature. Its Textbook Was Generated by AI.”
• “Do we want a belief credit score company in scholarly publishing?”
• “Exposure of Academic Misconduct and Universities’ Innovation Output” from retractions in China.
• “Concerns over lack of oversight for privately funded research” in Canada. 
• “Sage acquires the scientific and medical writer Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.”
• eLife pronounces partial feed to Web of Science, however won’t change publishing model following loss of impact factor. 
• Research facilities at college “experimented on folks – without permission.” A hyperlink to our previous coverage.
• “Ethics of posthumous scholarly authorship in the sciences.”
• “AI-authored abstracts ‘extra genuine’ than human-written ones.”
• “In Praise of Peer Review” from a journal editor. 
• Research scholar recordsdata criticism towards college college “for ‘misconduct.’”
• “On the (ab)use of particular points in scholarly journals.”
• “Giant study finds untrustworthy trials pollute gold-standard medical reviews.”
• “Paris declaration to spearhead battle against fake science.”
• “The Untold Mystery of Rogue RA,” a comic strip. 

Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, observe us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you’ll be able to let us know here. For feedback or suggestions, e mail us at [email protected].

Related