Science’s “nasty Photoshopping problem”; the publication ban of Dr. Oz; image manipulation detection software – Retraction Watch

0

OCould you consider a donation to support weekend readings, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

This week is a special double edition of Weekend Reads, thanks to a site outage that prevented us from publishing last Saturday. The past two weeks at Retraction Watch have featured:

Our list of removed or removed COVID-19 items goes up to 267. There are over 36,000 withdrawals in our database — which feeds the withdrawal alerts in Endnote, LibKey, Papers and Zotero. And have you seen our ranking of the authors with the most retractions lately – or our list of the 10 most cited retracted articles?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paid, have limited access, or require free registration to play):

  • “Science has a nasty Photoshopping problem.”
  • “Mehmet Oz’s medical research was rejected in 2003 resulting in a 2 year ban.”
  • Software that “performs image manipulation detection on…automatically extracted figures”.
  • A response from attorneys, research integrity officers and others to the US ORI’s call for comment on its regulations.
  • “But some professors say the problem is not that such freedom is rare, but that some of their colleagues use that freedom as a cover for unscientific and harmful ideas – and shirk responsibility for the consequences.”
  • “Hong Kong’s Top Scientist Retracts Papers Years After Publication Following Errors Spotted in Images.”
  • “Cluj University Ethics Commission Finds ‘Citation Errors’ in Interior Minister’s Doctoral Thesis.”
  • “But once news of the study started spreading on social media, it sparked a firestorm of criticism and eventually a letter to PNAS signed by more than 250 scientists calling for a retraction.
  • “Inside Story: Rogue Academics in Sri Lanka.”
  • “Faculty ‘really had no idea’ of their responsibilities to their data before the policy was developed, Pigg said.”
  • eLife will not reject papers once they are under review – what the researchers think.
  • “Compared to American researchers, European researchers admit more QRPs and are less confident in maintaining a high RI [research integrity] standards.”
  • “Flagship publishers accepted hundreds of faulty papers as they claimed to impose peer review.”
  • Croce retractions + background
  • “What Happens to Science When Model Organisms Become Endangered?”
  • “The thread retracts its meta-stories.”
  • Three months after reporting the results of an investigation at Ohio State University, PLOS ONE retracted an article. reported university.
  • “Due to an editorial error, this expression of concern was mistakenly associated with the wrong article by some of the same authors.”
  • “Beware of Inflated Post Rates, Says Research Fraudbuster.”
  • “US Scientists Wary of Authors’ Publication Fees Under Biden’s Order.”
  • “When bad actors hijack good research.”
  • Plagiarism ’embarrassing flaw’ to McCrory’s reputation, but no stain on AFL’s work: report. »
  • “Academic misconduct and misrepresentation hotspots among academics in the Republic of Poland, a member state of the European Union.”
  • “Will the infamous masturbation article increase ethical scrutiny?”
  • “Science needs better fraud detection – and more whistleblowers.”
  • “Scientific integrity requires the publication of rebuttals and the retraction of problematic articles.”
  • “For a long time, publishing scientific research did not pay off.” Lessons from the History of Philosophical Transactions.
  • “The mishandling of scientifically flawed articles on radiation exposure, withdrawn for ethical reasons…”
  • In anesthesiology, citing retracted articles “remains a common occurrence.” See here for more.
  • “The editor has removed this article because we have evidence to suggest that the authorship of this article was offered for sale before the article was submitted to the journal.”
  • “He’s a strong advocate for meat. Industry funds his research, Files Show.
  • “Reflections on the Guest Edition of a Frontiers Journal.” They are critical.
  • “Destroying eLife’s reputation for selectivity does not serve science.”
  • “Could AI help you write your next article?”
  • “Combating Interests: When Whistleblowers Profit from Allegations of Scientific Misconduct.”
  • “Wikipedia citations influence scholars and editors.”
  • “A History of Scientific Journals: Publication in the Royal Society, 1665-2015.”
  • A group of Temple cardiology researchers had an article removed amid investigations.
  • “Does the peer review process need blockchain?”
  • “Homeopathy in cancer patients: almost too good to be true.” An article deserves an expression of concern.

Like the retraction watch? You can do a tax-deductible contribution to support our workFollow us on Twitterlike us on Facebookadd us to your RSS readeror subscribe to our daily summary. If you find a retraction that is not in our databaseyou can let us know here. For feedback or feedback, email us at [email protected].

Share.

Comments are closed.