An epidemic of scientific fakery threatens to overwhelm publishers; The Washington Post, June 11, 2024

Adam Marcus

 and 

Ivan Oransky, The Washington Post

; An epidemic of scientific fakery threatens to overwhelm publishers

"A record number of retractions — more than 10,000 scientific papers in 2023. Nineteen academic journals shut down recently after being overrun by fake research from paper mills. A single researcher with more than 200 retractions.

The numbers don’t lie: Scientific publishing has a problem, and it’s getting worse. Vigilance against fraudulent or defective research has always been necessary, but in recent years the sheer amount of suspect material has threatened to overwhelm publishers.

We were not the first to write about scientific fraud and problems in academic publishing when we launched Retraction Watch in 2010 with the aim of covering the subject regularly."

Controversial French researcher loses two papers for ethics approval issues; retraction watch, October 31, 2023

 Retraction Watch; Controversial French researcher loses two papers for ethics approval issues

"Didier Raoult, the French infectious disease scientist who came to prominence for promoting hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment, has lost two papers for ethics concerns after other scientists flagged issues with hundreds of publications from the institute he formerly led. 

Both papers, “Increased Gut Redox and Depletion of Anaerobic and Methanogenic Prokaryotes in Severe Acute Malnutrition,” and “Gut Microbiota Alteration is Characterized by a Proteobacteria and Fusobacteria Bloom in Kwashiorkor and a Bacteroidetes Paucity in Marasmus,” appeared in Scientific Reports in 2016 and 2019, respectively. They have been cited approximately 160 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science."

Stanford president to resign over concerns about integrity of his research; The Guardian, July 19, 2023

Guardian staff and agency , The Guardian; Stanford president to resign over concerns about integrity of his research

"The president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, has announced he will resign after concerns about the integrity of his research."

Putin wanted Russian science to top the world. Then a huge academic scandal blew up.; The Washington Post, January 17, 2020

Robyn Dixon , The Washington Post; Putin wanted Russian science to top the world. Then a huge academic scandal blew up.

 

"Now a group at the center of Putin’s aspirations, the Russian Academy of Sciences, has dropped a bombshell into the plans. A commission set up by the academy has led to the retraction of at least 869 Russian scientific articles, mainly for plagiarism.

 

“This is the largest retraction in Russian scientific history. Never before have hundreds of papers been retracted,” said Andrei Zayakin, scientific secretary of the RAS Commission for Countering the Falsification of Scientific Research. “Before two years ago, there might have been single cases, but not even dozens.”

 

What went wrong? Many scientists blame Putin’s 2012 order, which provided greater funding but also led to pressure on scientists to churn out multiple papers a year regardless of quality, amid heavy teaching loads."

A Science Journal Invokes ‘the Creator,’ and Science Pushes Back; Wired.com, 3/3/16

Madison Kotack, Wired.com; A Science Journal Invokes ‘the Creator,’ and Science Pushes Back:

"After a couple days of getting batted around in social media and comments sections, the journal retracted the whole paper. No editors from PLoS ONE responded to requests for comment.

Since PLoS ONE is open-source, it’s tempting to wonder if this kind of mistake calls into question the quality of all open-access scientific journals? PLoS ONE‘s website describes its editorial and peer-review practices, but also says that it can publish faster than old-school journals because it leaves out “subjective assessments of significance or scope to focus on technical, ethical and scientific rigor.”

Yet somehow Creationism got past peer review.

On the other hand, the old big-dog journals have their problems, too—plagiarism, errors, and so on. “I don’t think this will mean anything for open access journals, and it shouldn’t, because it happens at top journals, too,” says Jonathan Eisen, chair of PLoS Biology‘s advisory board and a big-time advocate for open-access (though unaffiliated with PLoS ONE)."

The Intercept admits reporter fabricated stories and quotes; Guardian, 2/2/16

Julia Carrie Wong, Guardian; The Intercept admits reporter fabricated stories and quotes:

"Digital magazine The Intercept has fired reporter Juan Thompson after discovering “a pattern of deception” in his reporting. In a note to readers, editor-in-chief Betsy Reed revealed that Thompson had fabricated quotes in several stories and created email accounts in order to impersonate people.

“Thompson went to great lengths to deceive his editors, creating an email account to impersonate a source and lying about his reporting methods,” Reed wrote.

Following an investigation into Thompson’s reporting, the publication is retracting one story in its entirety and appending corrections to four others. Among the inconsistencies The Intercept discovered were quotes “attributed to people who said they had not been interviewed” and quotes that could not be verified."

What’s Behind Big Science Frauds?; New York Times, 5/22/15

Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, New York Times; What’s Behind Big Science Frauds? :

"Science fetishizes the published paper as the ultimate marker of individual productivity. And it doubles down on that bias with a concept called “impact factor” — how likely the studies in a given journal are to be referenced by subsequent articles. The more “downstream” citations, the theory goes, the more impactful the original article.

Except for this: Journals with higher impact factors retract papers more often than those with lower impact factors. It’s not clear why. It could be that these prominent periodicals have more, and more careful, readers, who notice mistakes. But there’s another explanation: Scientists view high-profile journals as the pinnacle of success — and they’ll cut corners, or worse, for a shot at glory.

And while those top journals like to say that their peer reviewers are the most authoritative experts around, they seem to keep missing critical flaws that readers pick up days or even hours after publication — perhaps because journals rush peer reviewers so that authors will want to publish their supposedly groundbreaking work with them."