If your week flew by (we know ours did), catch up here on what you may have missed. The week at Retraction Watch highlighted: In case you missed the news, Hijacked Journal Checker now has over 450 entries. The Retraction Watch database has more than 67,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is approaching 700 and our list of mass resignations has more than 50 entries. We are aware of all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these articles may be paid, metered access, or require free registration to read): “It has been an open secret for many years that Informa would consider selling Taylor & Francis if the price was right.” “arXiv’s new preprint submission limit divides opinion”. India’s NIRF university rankings are delayed as the board considers “excluding” repeat offenders of misconduct after including retraction data in its analysis. The case of Yannick Griep “reveals why cheating in science is so persistent and what can be done about it.” “Statistical Research: Can You Spot a Problem?”: A podcast featuring Dan Ariely’s recent retraction. “The effect of research paper mills is enough to begin to affect the results of LLM consultations,” says the researcher. Scientists do not have a “religious calling that keeps them away from the temptations of the real world,” says Nick Brown. “The Systemic Breaches of AI in Academic Publishing: Infrastructure Failures and Author Misconduct at Seven Major Publishers.” “Peer review is not free. So who pays?” Don’t demand prompt disclosure of AI, ethicists argue. A composer who received criticism for publishing a paper on theoretical physics responds, saying that “AI companies have hijacked academic norms.” “Editors-in-chief of Science, Nature, Cell, and NEJM AI on what journals now require when AI performs analysis and who gets credit.” “The limited communication of corrections to users of academic platforms.” “Publishers to share 20 million research articles with AI startup”. “CDC is moving forward with a controversial, previously shelved hepatitis B vaccine study.” Arthur Caplan and Jonathan Moreno previously wrote: “CDC’s hepatitis B study is unethical and should never be published.” “Should AI play a role in peer review?” and “The Conversation We’re Not Having About AI in Peer Review.” “Available upon reasonable request: the authorship function that was already dead.” “‘Organized academic bullying’ at the Department of Chemistry, Hokkaido University”. “What can chemists learn from how AI is revolutionizing mathematics?” “The Fast Track to Publishing: Bibliometric Analysis of Quick Service Fees in Academic Publishing.” “Editors are facing an influx of AI-written submissions, even in scientific journals like mine. What now?” Journal editors explain how they address “the impacts of generative artificial intelligence on academic publishing.” One researcher proposes that preprint servers “integrate a mandatory data sanitization checklist into the submission process” to prevent the leak of sensitive information. The authors “reject the use of the term ‘scientific’” to refer to AI agents in academic publications. “OpenAI fires researchers for allegedly sharing information with AI Safety Group”. The researchers “dispute allegations of misconduct and warn of chilling effect” in an open letter. “A small study in Iran influenced meta-analyses in favor of antidepressant use in children, researchers say.” The former university president added the school’s former vice president to the defamation suit following allegations of plagiarism. “All the results in the US News rankings seemed to be good news this year, based on a wave of press releases touting how well colleges were doing, even when they fell.” “AI agents are not good at interpreting science. What can be done?” “Ten priorities for academic publishing until 2027.” “How could Rosalind Franklin not see the helix in her iconic DNA image? She didn’t.” Next talk as a retraction clock? 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 is not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or suggestions, please email us at [email protected]. Related
