MIT rescinds support of AI paper; should AI write science papers, anyway?; another pub steps in for paused NIH journal – 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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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 59,000 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 — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

• “MIT Says It No Longer Stands Behind Student’s AI Research Paper.”
• “Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split.”
• “As NIH publication halts manuscript acceptance, ToxSci steps in.” 
• University “shuts down research center plagued by plagiarism allegations.”
• “Peer review, registries, and evidence-based patient information take a big hit” in administration’s cuts at the National Cancer Institute.
• Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth “‘plagiarized’ small portions of his senior thesis, experts say. But how serious is it?“
• Researchers find early career researchers “suspect that [AI use is] approaching a cliff-edge, which can only be avoided with strong policies.”
• “A Primer on Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics”: A podcast.
• “Dear editors, your publication delays are damaging our careers,” says researcher. 
• “Misconduct in Your Backyard? An Ethical Review of Clinical Trials.”
• University “administrators remain mum on allegations of research misconduct” against professor.
• “‘Orwellian’: planetary scientists outraged over deletion of research records.”
• “Students, professors urge” university to “take action” against South Korean first lady after plagiarism accusations.
• “Intercepting Misconduct: Seven Practical Tips for Editors.”
• Shoddy study designs and false findings using a large public health dataset portend future risk of exploitation by AI and paper mills, a study and accompanying editorial conclude.
• Trump administration cancels university grant aimed at teaching research ethics.
• “University punishes professor and daughter for academic misconduct.”
• “Digging into the math of a study attacking the safety of the abortion pill.”
• “From ‘publish or perish’ to ‘be visible or vanish’: What’s next?” asks a university research director. 
• “Flood of AI-assisted research ‘weakening quality of science.’”
• “Science requires ethical oversight – without federal dollars, society’s health and safety are at risk.”
• Researchers find the “recent reduction in spelling error rates [in academic papers] could be due to an increased use of large language models.” 
• “Is the list of Highly Cited Researchers losing credibility?”
• Study finds “Democrats, left-leaning think tanks cite scientific studies more than Republicans.”
• “The Chilling Effect of DEI Crackdowns in Scientific Publishing.”
• “Germany’s Plan for an Open and Independent PubMed Safety Net.”
• In which a paper refers to “New Crown Epidemics” instead of the “COVID-19 Pandemic.” It has been retracted.
• “RETRACTION: A Sincere Apology To The Pangolin Community.”

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