Science retracts ‘arsenic life’ paper; another journal issue on Palestine cancelled; JAMA, NEJM editors decry political interference – Retraction Watch

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 60,000 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 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):

• “Harvard publisher cancels entire journal issue on Palestine shortly before publication.” A similar case we covered earlier this year. 
• Medical progress depends on independent journals to advance science without political interference,” say the editors of NEJM and JAMA.
• “Alzheimer’s scientist forced to retract paper during his own replication effort.”
• “AI will soon be able to audit all published research – what will that mean for public trust in science?”
• “One in six scientific papers mischaracterize work they cite,” study finds.
• Researchers rely on “‘gut feelings’ of ownership” to “navigate attributional ambiguity” of AI authorship, study finds.
• A dual submission proposal to address shortage of interdisciplinary data: Researchers suggest papers “be submitted to and peer-reviewed simultaneously by two journals, in different fields, with joint publication under a single DOI.”
• “AI-Enabled Cheating Points to ‘Untenable’ Peer Review System.”
• “Nature’s move to make peer-review reports public” could “inadvertently fuel skepticism”: correspondence.
• “The number of published articles significantly outpaces the number of scientists and, hence, available peer reviewers” in the dental research community.
• Taiwan university educator “allegedly coerced members of the university’s soccer team into participating in experimental procedures, including having blood tests.”
• “South Korean President Withdraws Minister Over Plagiarism Allegations.”
• “China’s corruption busters target science sector in crackdown on research funding fraud.”
• “Is there a strain on peer review? – It’s more complicated than you think,” says a Springer Nature executive.
• University researcher “raised concerns about research misconduct. Then he lost his job.”
• Bangladesh University Grants Commission secretary accused of plagiarism in his 2013 PhD thesis.
• Misidentification of microscopes “may be a tractable signature for flagging problematic” papers, researchers find. Our exclusive on the preprint last year. 
• A case of a “review mill” at an MDPI journal.
• “By emphasizing scientific uncertainty above other values, political appointees can block any regulatory action they want to“: More on the ‘Gold Standard’ executive order. 
• Researchers say their video might help educate medical school residents and students about predatory journals.
• “Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos”: Researchers look into minimizing their “Operating Space.” 
• Study aims to “define, collect, and categorize” questionable research practices in psychology.
• “The COVID-19 pandemic transformed this scientist into a research-integrity sleuth.” A link to a guest post he co-authored for us.
• NIH limits scientists to six applications per year for AI concerns, and budget cuts could “accelerate the decline” of NIH-funded scientific publications.
• Psychiatry journals are “inconsistent in their adherence to ethical guidelines for informed consent in case reports,” study finds. 
• “Fund scholars who tackle urgent issues — from misinformation to error spotting.”
• “AI, bounties and culture change, how scientists are taking on errors“: The Nature Podcast features our Ivan Oransky.
• A look at retractions in heart research.
• Study finds “retractions due to data problems have increased significantly” since 2000. 
• “Capping APCs May Backfire on NIH,” says sociologist.
• “How getting tenure changes researchers’ publication habits — and citations.”
• “The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades” of safety disclosure for a herbicide.

We’re hiring!

Assistant researcher, Retraction Watch Database
The Assistant Researcher will enter data into an existing database, locate source material from searches through various publishing and indexing platforms or from spreadsheets, and quality-check existing entries as assigned. Learn more and apply here. Deadline: August 15.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

Related