Great read

"Why RFK Jr.’s pick for a vaccine-autism review may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers"

"While there’s irony in the retraction of a paper on conflicts of interest for issues with conflicts of interest, the key part of that story is that the journal replaced it with a new version of the paper with an updated conflict of interest statement and changes throughout — and this paper remains intact. "

#retractionWatch #RFK #vaccine #antivax #AcademicChatter

https://retractionwatch.com/2025/03/27/david-geier-retractions-autism-vaccines-rfk-hhs-cdc/

Academic publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for science

Great piece in the conversation

#oa #publishing #academicchatter #retractionwatch

Https://theconversation.com/academic-publishing-is-a-multibillion-dollar-industry-its-not-always-good-for-science-250056?utm_medium=article_native_share&utm_source=theconversation.com

Where did all the AI experts come from? They used to be virologists…

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02287-w

They rejected his manuscript, then he saw it published by other authors. https://retractionwatch.com/2025/03/06/peer-reviewer-publishes-mistake-manuscript-rejected/ #scientificLiterature #retractionwatch

[2/4]
Fraud in science? Ivan Oransky shares a case of research misconduct that rocked the field. Get the full story: https://qspace.fqxi.org/podcasts/123/2025.02.18 #ScienceIntegrity #RetractionWatch

Fancy science journal caught publishing nonsense term "vegetative electron microscopy," doubles down

https://boingboing.net/2025/02/12/fancy-science-journal-caught-publishing-nonsense-term-vegetative-electron-microscopy-doubles-down.html

"As a nonsense phrase of shady provenance makes the rounds, Elsevier defends its use"

https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/10/vegetative-electron-microscopy-fingerprint-paper-mill/

Retraction Watch is #hiring for their Sleuth in Residence Program https://retractionwatch.com/2025/01/02/introducing-the-retraction-watch-sleuth-in-residence-program/

Wonderful! Anna Abalkina & the #RetractionWatch blog‬ have put together the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker. This will help #publishers and #authors who don't want legitimate, high-quality #research #articles ending up in #hijacked #journals. https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ak985WGOgGbJRJbZFanoktAN_UFeExpE/edit#gid=364865985

#Retraction handling by potential #predatory #journals
(published in 'Accountability in #Research’)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2024.2434245

the number of works in @wikidata that are annotated as retracted (think #RetractionWatch) has grown to 21 thousand (https://scholia.toolforge.org/statistics).

The number of works citing retracted articles has grown to 295 thousand (https://w.wiki/CA2T)

That means that the number known authors (wikidata:P50) has grown to 186 thousand (https://w.wiki/CA2V)

That is 186,384 researchers that need to decide how the retraction affects their own work.

Concerned about the person Drumpf wants as US secretary of health (RFK Jr.)? Read this article from #RetractionWatch about #Salon's retraction of that person's controversial story about an #alleged link between #autism and #thimerosal. https://tinyurl.com/y67yzf6n

so this company "Flow Science" in the US searched for papers that cited their software, cross referenced the authors with their customer list. they tried to shake down some authors in India -- which has very different intellectual property laws than the US -- who pirated the software by offering them 'retroactive licenses.' when they wouldn't pay, Flow Science contacted Elsevier to have the paper retracted, which they did. Elsevier then claims that "it is the journal's responsibility to ensure that pirated software isn't used" as if they didn't own the journal. Right.

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/11/08/complaint-from-engineering-software-company-prompts-two-retractions/

Why does it take soooo long???
#academicpublishing #retractionwatch #academicchatter

‘All the red flags’: Scientific Reports retracts paper sleuths called out in open letter – Retraction Watch
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/11/11/all-the-red-flags-scientific-reports-retracts-paper-sleuths-called-out-in-open-letter/

Just added another article to my group library about primary care research:

"The trend and ripple effects of retractions in primary health care: A bibliometric analysis", found via #RetractionWatch

https://www.zotero.org/groups/2605026/primary_care_research/items/4IH7ENU5/item-list

https://mastodon.social/@lffontenelle/109541543438474486

eLife latest in string of major journals (also includes STOTEN) put on hold from Web of Science #Retractionwatch

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10/24/elife-latest-in-string-of-major-journals-put-on-hold-from-web-of-science/

1 in 7 scientific papers is fake, suggests study that author calls ‘wildly nonsystematic’ https://retractionwatch.com/2024/09/24/1-in-7-scientific-papers-is-fake-suggests-study-that-author-calls-wildly-nonsystematic/

I was reading an article in #LeMonde which referred to a couple of scientific papers. One of them was cited by its link to #PMC, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4857885/

However, #retractionWatch tells of the #retraction of this paper https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/

On the #publisher's page, the only sign of the #retraction is a link on the side "Authors’ Explanation of the Retraction" and pdf file is not tagged in any way—it even has an "update" banner leading to this below.

Is this common??

https://www.lemonde.fr/intimites/article/2024/09/22/les-femmes-confrontees-a-une-separation-pendant-leur-cancer-c-est-l-experience-la-plus-traumatisante-de-ma-vie_6327599_6190330.html

This is about one of the many TED Talks that I used to show my classes when I taught at a community college that have turned out to fraudulent.

There is only one sentence in this interview with the debunker that I disagree with:

"Rich people do lots of exercise, have low stress and eat well."

Yes, rich people have better health and live longer, but they do no get more "exercise." This only happens if you count going to the gym as "exercise." One of the reasons that poor people don't live as long is the literal back breaking activity they have to do to survive. Almost any construction worker gets more "exercise" than any trust fund gym rat.

But otherwise his point about data keeping is probably true.

#TEDTalks #BlueZones #RetractionWatch

***********************

‘The data on extreme human ageing is rotten from the inside out’ – Ig Nobel winner Saul Justin Newman

https://theconversation.com/the-data-on-extreme-human-ageing-is-rotten-from-the-inside-out-ig-nobel-winner-saul-justin-newman-239023