Weekend reads: University and journal investigating gene-editing death; ADA ‘must take accountability’; psychedelic therapy paper faces retraction

University investigations have been launched into a tragic gene-editing incident following reports from Science-Retraction Watch. The journal investigating an apparent data mismatch in a climate study has come under scrutiny. An exclusive news outlet reportedly withdrew a story on plagiarism allegations after a Cambridge professor hired legal counsel.

Kaggle has removed a problematic stroke dataset due to copyright infringement concerns. Over 400 U.S. patents contain citations to retracted scientific papers. A Retraction Watch story, which exposed a research factory, has led to investigations, preprint withdrawals, and terminations. A federal lawsuit accuses four major publishers of extorting article processing charges.

The Hijacked Journal Checker now includes more than 450 entries, and the Retraction Watch Database has surpassed 66,000 retractions. COVID-19 retractions have reached 650, and there are over 50 entries in the mass resignations list. The American Diabetes Association is facing accountability for a perceived self-inflicted mess. A psychedelic therapy paper connected to sexual abuse is under threat of retraction.

Research indicates that nearly 88% of paper mill article retractions originated from Chinese researchers. Analysts discovered a string of paper retractions linked to specific vice chancellors and directors at eight of India's top 100 universities. Systems failures are identified as a distinct category of scientific fraud. Academic integrity has become a pedagogy of suspicion, with many cases of misconduct resulting from unevenly distributed opportunities rather than ethical failings.

Paper mills have been implicated in retracted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A chemistry journal has retracted a paper by a Russian Academy of Sciences official who had previously faced two retractions. The founder of Research Professional News plans to launch a new publication following Clarivate's decision to close the news site.

MIT Press director discusses the progress in open sharing of knowledge. A discussion arises regarding whether scientific journalism should aim to improve trust in science. Predatory journals are questioned for potentially publishing undergraduate and AI-generated papers. Faculty affiliation errors are highlighted as a potential research security issue.

The impact of AI on medicine and the pharmaceutical industry is explored. Tools for detecting hallucinated and suspicious citations are analyzed for their limitations. The influence of power dynamics among returning deans on academic publications in Chinese universities is examined. Criminal cases have been filed against 249 guest lecturers who submitted fake PhD certificates in India.

Bias in scientific publishing is addressed, emphasizing the need to uphold integrity in research reporting. The role of a journal's brand in establishing trust is questioned, as trust must now be made legible to both humans and machines. Retraction Watch's founder receives the Rosalind Franklin Prize for scientific integrity. A study finds that articles initially published as preprints had a 70-day shorter time to first citation compared to non-preprint articles.

A court upholds the sentence of a former professor who forced students to write a paper for his daughter's admission. Researchers discuss the top AI startups that barely publish their research, with more than half of AI 'unicorns' not having published any papers or preprints. The article scrutinizes the broken world of scientific publishing, where peer review is questioned, yet peer-review is deemed crucial for the future.