The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at what happens to authors when a journal is delisted, a reminder of how hard it is to figure out whether a paper has been retracted, and a survey on how common plagiarism is in economics. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- That wasn’t plagiarism, it was “unprofessional quotation,” says Vietnam’s Academy of Social Sciences about a thesis. (Chi Mi, Vietnam.net)
- Image sleuths — including “Claire Francis” and Elisabeth Bik, whose names will be familiar to Retraction Watch readers — explain how Photoshop abuse is ruining science. Our Ivan Oransky is also quoted. The piece is one of two prompted by investigations at KU Leuven. (Maxie Eckert, Sijn Cools, De Standaard)
- “Women authors have been persistently underrepresented in high-profile journals…The percent of female first and last authors is negatively associated with a journal’s impact factor.” (preprint, bioRxiv) “These days there is an overwhelming consensus in our scientific community that scientific talent is not gendered…It is time for the journals to “lean in.” (Ione Fine and Alicia Shen, writing about the preprint, in The Conversation)
- “In other words, people do not think that we are cranks.” Nick Brown and James Heathers explain how they debunk — and why are they are so successful at it. (Medium)
- Do papers from Harvard have a better chance of being published at the New England Journal of Medicine, which is based there? A new study tries to answer. (Scientometrics)
- “[A]rticles on gender bias are funded less often and published in journals with a lower Impact Factor than articles on comparable instances of social discrimination.” (Scientometrics)
- Authors of a premier medical textbook “received more than $11 million…from makers of drugs and medical devices — not a penny of which was disclosed to readers.” (Our co-founders, STAT) Our Adam Marcus speaks to NPR’s Here & Now about the study. (Robin Young)
- “The journal Archives of Iranian Medicine just published a set of 33 papers about one study.” Neuroskeptic weighs in on a staggering case of salami slicing. (Discover)
- The failure of a key UK government minister to give evidence at a recent hearing “may lead scholars to conclude [research integrity] is ‘not a ministerial priority,’” Jack Grove of Times Higher Education reports. Our Ivan Oransky gave evidence to the same committee in December.
- “Susan Dynarski, a prominent scholar, accuses Kevin Hassett, a top Trump administration economist, of plagiarizing her work in a 2007 column.” (Andrew Kreighbaum, Inside Higher Ed)
- PEERE, a conference offering “new frontiers of peer review,” held a conference in Rome this week.
- “[I]t appears to be a remarkable breach of trust.” Did a study of Portland, Oregon-area K-12 students break U.S. federal laws? (Katie Shepherd, Willamette Week)
- “False investigators and coercive citation are widespread in academic research,” writes Allen Wilhite. (LSE Impact Blog)
- “I refuse all review requests with deadlines < 3 weeks,” says Stephen B. Heard. “Here’s why, and how.” (Scientist Sees Squirrel)
- “Prominent Columbia University neuroscientist Tom Jessell, 66, has been fired for ‘serious [behavioral] violations’ and the university is closing his lab,” Meredith Wadman reports. (Science)
- A look at the 96 retractions by Joachim Boldt finds that “retraction practices are not uniform and that guidelines for retraction are still not being fully implemented, resulting in retractions of insufficient quantity and quality.” (Christan Wiedermann, Accountability in Research)
- What could artificial intelligence (AI) mean for scientific publishing? asks Jabe Wilson. (R&D)
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), 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@example.com.