Retraction Watch 周末阅读：期刊应对“Mathpocalypse”、自闭症论文获关注声明、Cell Press 调查贿赂指控

If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Japanese institute finds materials researcher with 41 retractions guilty of ‘extensive’ manipulation
• Journal founded by plastic surgeon touts studies of products he’s tied to – including one that has been retracted
• Thousands of research studies violate journal policies on collaborations between editors and authors
• Journal updates retraction notice as Princeton student author stays in the spotlight

In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 67,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is approaching 800, and our mass resignations list has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.

I Support Retraction Watch

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

• Leading journals in probability are temporarily shutting doors to new submissions “to cope with the Mathpocalypse / Slopwave.”
• “Highly cited autism paper earns expression of concern over data duplications.”
• Cell Press investigating editor-in-chief accused of soliciting bribes from authors. 
• “University probe leads to retraction of four neural tube studies.”
• “Google DeepMind AI crystallography database includes near duplicate structures and unrealistic compounds.”
• Six in 10 cases exceed Korea’s “Six-Month Rule” for research misconduct investigations.
• Bulgarian Academic Ethics Committee report found “over 95% plagiarism” in professor’s paper. 
• Former editor-in-chief says journals “should cap each author’s submissions – but with a twist.”
• Journal issues correction for article on heart device with incorrect clinical trial registration number following our coverage. 
• “M.I.T. Scientist Wins $6 Million in Sexual Harassment Defamation Suit.”
• After members announced a boycott of the American Diabetes Association, its flagship journal Diabetes stopped taking submissions and published letters from editors, its editor-in-chief and members of an affiliated grant program addressed to ADA’s board of directors.
• “Will a M-index to measure academic mentorship create more problems than it solves?”
• “Post-publication review as a digital colloquium.”
• Science replaces expression of concern for paper on AI chatbots and conspiracy theories with an erratum. The publisher did the same for an article on perovskite solar cells with a duplicated figure. 
• “Citation accuracy, citation noise, and citation bias: a foundation of citation analysis.”
• “It’s time to teach peer review as a core research skill.”
• “Cops raid office of RFK Jr. allies planning ‘unethical’ vaccine trial on babies.” Read a Retraction Watch guest post on the trial. 
• “Could your chatbot tip off a scientific rival? It’s possible, researchers say.”
• “Nate Silver forecast shifts toward Republicans after fake polls removed.”
• “AI use by reviewers presents growing challenge for funders.”
• “Science-wide mapping of institutions based on affiliated authors’ impact and research integrity proxies.”
• For retraction notices in Latin American journals, “notice availability and article identification alone do not ensure complete reporting of the circumstances surrounding a retraction.”
• “Scientists say authors of a controversial government climate report made basic error,” relied on “flawed analysis.”
• “Manuscript peer review lacks an empirically derived definition,” say researchers. 
• “Who is to blame for a journal’s recent glut of retractions?” We covered the mass retraction last month. 
• “Anticipating the unpredictable: A qualitative study on ethics experts’ perspectives on review challenges related to AI.”
• “Reproducibility in biomedical research.”
• “A case of misinformation on academic Bluesky.”
• “Some Australian research funding is now a lottery. And that’s actually good news.”
• “The Murky World of Conflict of Interest.”
• “In Which The Toxicologists Are Being A Bit Silly,” including a case where authors removed a reference to Retraction Watch after citing the photo credit as the author. 

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 team@retractionwatch.com.

Sign up for our newsletter

注意转载授权 · 阅读原文