Retracted research papers continue to be cited after retraction, such as Wakefields paper on autism and vaccines, some including this have received more citations *after* being retracted! #RetractionWatch

https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/

Two high-profile retractions in a year and one to go: Ranga Dias is about to do a hat trick in scientific misconduct.
#VaultingAmbition
#superconductivity
#ScientificMisconduct
#retractionwatch

Editor’s Note, Nature, Sept. 1, 2023: “Readers are alerted that the reliability of the data presented in this manuscript is currently under question.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05742-0

There’s far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit | Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/scientific-misconduct-retraction-watch

#RetractionWatch #ScientificMisconduct #Science #scientificresearch #Academia

Journal editors resign, strike in dispute with Wiley over ‘business model that maximises profit’

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07/20/journal-editors-resign-strike-in-dispute-with-wiley-over-business-model-that-maximises-profit/

#academicpublishing
#AcademicMastodon
#retractionwatch

If #predatory #journals are very low in quality, dishonest, or both (my quick and dirty def), then the category covers both #subscription and #OA journals. Their defining condition is independent of their open/closed status.

To see this, it helps to point out non-OA examples now and then.

See the reporting from #RetractionWatch on the Journal of Electronic Imaging.
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/06/20/deplorable-imaging-journal-to-retract-nearly-80-papers-for-compromised-peer-review/

"A researcher who publishes a study every two days reveals the darker side of science"
In El Pais. via #RetractionWatch
#fraud
https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2023-06-04/a-researcher-who-publishes-a-study-every-two-days-reveals-the-darker-side-of-science.html

Why are #retractions rising, asks @ivanoransky?

Two main possibilities:
1. More misconduct, which makes up 2/3 of reasons for retraction;
2. Better detection, by sleuths and journals.

#UKRIOevents #RetractionWatch #PublicationEthics

“Bust Size and Hitchhiking” author earns five expressions of concern https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/28/bust-size-and-hitchhiking-author-earns-five-expressions-of-concern/ #retractionwatch

I'm looking again at the list of 55 journals de-listed by Web of Science this month for quality reasons. Among them, as others have noted, is the #MDPI flagship mega-journal International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), as well as an astonishing 19 #Hindawi journals.

The list, via #RetractionWatch, noting which titles were de-listed due to editorial quality: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AiUI0qf4SqXzn8OXy6HZtma3Z8sLgJIBtgAcv6D5mK0/edit?usp=sharing

Related post: https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/21/nearly-20-hindawi-journals-delisted-from-leading-index-amid-concerns-of-papermill-activity/

#ScholarlyCommunications #WebOfScience #WOS

A worthwhile read on animal ethics and journal publishing:

Janine McCarthy, "When journals don’t meet their ethical guidelines, will anyone hold them accountable?" (#RetractionWatch 17/3/2023).

McCarthy highlights the notorious #MDPI journal Nutrients, which she argues "has a particularly bad record of accepting studies with egregious violations of ethical norms when it comes to experiments on animals."

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/17/when-journals-dont-meet-their-ethical-guidelines-will-anyone-hold-them-accountable/

#ScholarlyCommunications #AnimalEthics

A worthwhile read on #AnimalEthics and journal publishing, highlighting the troubling case of the notorious #MDPI journal Nutrients:

Janine McCarthy, "When journals don’t meet their ethical guidelines, will anyone hold them accountable?" (#RetractionWatch 17/3/2023).

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/17/when-journals-dont-meet-their-ethical-guidelines-will-anyone-hold-them-accountable/

McCarthy argues that Nutrients "has a particularly bad record of accepting studies with egregious violations of ethical norms when it comes to experiments on animals."

#ScholarlyCommunications

#Medical #research has a too high percentage of #fraud|ulennt papers, #RetractionWatch finds.
That is worrying and should keep up working on improving the system around scientific research, e.g. public pre-registration of studies. But read yourself:

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/02/25/weekend-reads-a-worrying-amount-of-fraud-in-medical-research-a-society-backpedals-on-sanctions-a-plagiarism-case-become-even-more-bizarre/

BTW time-stamped registrations of studies can happen with the Center of Open Science, https://www.cos.io/

nice summary of the weird affair of a PhD student listed as a prolific guest editor in Hindawi journals.
Start to think that #RetractionWatch needs a sister site called OughtToBeRetractedButIsntWatch
#fraud #IdentityTheft
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/02/16/exclusive-prof-stole-former-students-identity-to-edit-two-journal-special-issues/

Encouraging that this paper was finally retracted, given the obvious #DataPrivacy problems.

Retracted: Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry and confirmation by liquid chromatography–high‐resolution mass spectrometry hair tests to evidence use of tizanidine by racing cyclists. Drug Testing and Analysis 2023:dta.3443. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3443.

#RetractionWatch #retractions #PublicationEthics #PeerReview #AntiDoping #science #research #MassSpec #ProCycling #TourDeFrance #sports

#retractionwatch #science #publishing #papermill

#RetractionWatch news

A win for honesty and science.
Fraudster has to pay 1million .
Schadenfreude ist auch Freude.

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/09/judge-orders-osu-cancer-researcher-to-pay-1-million-to-lawyers-from-failed-libel-suit/

@dickretired The retraction tide is turning: https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/27/nearing-5000-retractions-a-review-of-2022/

The efforts of Retraction Watch, COPE (COI: I'm on COPE council), WCRI, PubPeer, and sleuths have added pressure to act and kudos to publishers and authors for Doing The Right Thing.

When authors self-correct, they aren't penalised in loss of citations to their subsequent papers: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep03146/

#PublicationEthics #Retractions #RetractionWatch #CommitteeOnPublicationEthics #C0PE

"In 2002, journals retracted 119 papers from the scientific literature.

What a difference two decades make."
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/27/nearing-5000-retractions-a-review-of-2022/

#Retractions #RetractionWatch #PublicationEthics #YearInReview2022

While the retraction led to some disagreements within the scientometric community, let’s not forget that a problematic letter from the publisher Frontiers is the ultimate source of the problem! https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/07/authors-object-after-springer-nature-journal-cedes-to-publisher-frontiers-demand-for-retraction/

Frontiers sent a letter to Scientometrics demanding that the “article must be immediately retracted”. https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021.05.06_Article-Retraction-Request.pdf

#RetractionWatch

@zac Publishers are notoriously bad at #retractions notices, while #PubMed has made a lot of progress in the area, so it's very odd to mention *that* as a disadvantage of #OpenRepositories.

"Some studies also draw on additional information from the #ORI as well as the science blog #RetractionWatch, also indicating that the information in the notices has limited trustworthiness"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5600261/

#scholcomm #oa