Publish or perish, the card game; revisiting fraud in anesthesia; the chronology of Hindawi’s mass retractions – Retraction Watch

Bwould you consider donating to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch included:

Our list of retracted or retracted COVID-19 articles includes over 400 articles. The Retraction Watch database – now part of Crossref – contains more than 50,000 retractions. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 titles. And have you seen our top list of authors with the most retractions recently – or our list of the 10 most cited retracted articles? What about the Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List – or our list of nearly 100 articles with evidence that they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what happened elsewhere (some of these articles may have a paywall, charge for access, or require free registration to read):

• “‘Publish or Perish’ is a card game today – and not just in the life of an academic.”
• One magazine editor wondered if the data was “too good to be true.” A BBC radio report with our own Adam Marcus.
• The mass withdrawal from Hindawi has been “underreported, puzzlingly incomplete and very slow.”
• “Should publishers charge authors for the cost of returns?”
• “Diversity statements should not be required to receive federal STEMM grants.”
• “We argue against considering reproducibility as an inherently desirable property of scientific results, and in favor of considering it as a tool to measure the distance between an original study and its replications.”
• “A publishing platform that puts code at the center.”
• “Authors are increasingly paying for open access publication of their work. But is this fair or sustainable?”
• “The U.S. physics community is not finished with its work on trust.”
• “Should scientists get paid when AI chatbots use their work?”
• “In short, I think there is a clear argument for allocating a small portion (perhaps a tenth of a percent) of federal research funding to direct replication.”
• One study found that “loss of trust in scientific research leads to research-related misconduct toward publishers.”
• How research fraud can lead to a “humanitarian catastrophe bigger than most wars.”
• 40% of journal editors reported in a survey that “only 31–50% of manuscripts accepted for publication are statistically correct.”
• Researchers are investigating “why scientists find certain publishing practices more attractive than others.”
• One study found that retractions in molecular biology “and their citations were more often retracted for the same reason” and most “were published by the same publisher and even the same journal.”
• First authors and corresponding authors are “more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct,” says a study.
• A study examines appraisal factories: “A new category of appraiser misconduct that is contrary to appraiser ethics and integrity.”
• A second author of a removed article said he had “absolutely no involvement in the processes related to writing, submitting, reviewing and editing the article.”
• “Oncology conference registration scams: Experts warn: Be on your guard.”
• “Policies on chatbots with artificial intelligence in academic publishing: A cross-sectional study.”
• “Retractions as a bitter pill and corrective action to eliminate flawed science.”
• “Researchers are willing to trade their results for the prestige of a scientific journal: results from a discrete choice experiment.”
• “Nigerian professor used ghostwriter for politician’s academic proposal.”
• “Why are some scientific articles cited more frequently by politicians?”
• “What should journals do to prevent the publication of methodologically flawed systematic reviews?”
• “How did the scientific article evolve into its current, universally recognizable format?”
• “Never waste a good crisis.” A conversation with Klaas Sijtsma, Dean of Tilburg University during the Diederik Stapel scandal.

How to use Retraction Watch? You can Tax-deductible contribution to support our workfollow us on Twitterlike us on Facebookadd us to your RSS readeror subscribe to our Daily overviewIf you find a revocation that not in our databaseyou can let us know here. For comments or feedback, please email us at (email protected).

Related