Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
mathstodon.xyz is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Mastodon instance for maths people. We have LaTeX rendering in the web interface!

Administered by:

Server stats:

2.8K
active users

mathstodon.xyz: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.8

#retractions

1 post1 participant0 posts today
Public
ndocist

#ChatGPT est alimenté par des articles inexistants et des articles rétractés | Rédaction Médicale et Scientifique
"des IAg sont utilisées pour le peer-review"
#retractions #artificialintelligence
redactionmedicale.fr/2025/03/c

Rédaction Médicale et Scientifique · ChatGPT est alimenté par des articles inexistants et des articles rétractés | Rédaction Médicale et ScientifiqueUtiliser les Intelligences Artificielles génératives (IAg) nécessite une vigilance majeure...  Nous aurons des surprises. Nous savons qu'il est fortement déconseillé de déposer des manuscrits pour une aide au peer-review. Ces manuscrits n'ont pas été évalués et ils vont alimenter la mémoire de ces IAg. De plus, une autorisation de l'auteur…
Public
Public Knowledge Project

New Slaw column piece by PKP Founder John Willinsky -- "Is it Time to Protect the Public Interest in Research?"

"Yet, I wish to raise a couple of recent turns that suggest it may be time to consider a measure of legal oversight around research misconduct that comes to light through retractions."

Check it out: slaw.ca/2025/03/18/is-it-time-

Slaw · Is It Time To Protect the Public Interest in Research? - SlawIn the world of research, journal publishers are occasionally compelled to “retract” a published article. It may contain errors that posting a “correction” won’t sufficiently address, may utilize falsified data, may have been published elsewhere, may have been plagiarized, or may have been otherwise compromised. Yet the retracted paper does not disappear. It retains its […]
#Research#ResearchMisconduct#Retractions
Public
Serhii Nazarovets

Last year, we found that @OpenAlex was mistakenly marking some papers as retracted—misleading researchers. We @hauschke reported the issue, posted a preprint in March 2024, and… #OpenAlex fixed it almost instantly! 👏

:doi: doi.org/10.1177/01655515251322

Meanwhile, our peer-reviewed paper on this? Published today - over a year later. See the difference? Preprints matter. Open science works.

Hauschke, C., & Nazarovets, S. (2025). (Non-)retracted academic papers in OpenAlex. Journal of Information Science, January 2022, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515251322478
#OpenScience#Preprints#Retractions
Public *
François Renaville 🇺🇦🇪🇺

📢 #Scientometric indicators in #research evaluation and research #misconduct: analysis of the Russian #university excellence initiative

👉 "The results showed that #RUEI #universities had a significantly higher number of retracted #publications in #WoS - and #Scopus -indexed #journals, suggesting that pressure to meet quantitative scientometric #indicators may have encouraged unethical research practices and #researchmisconduct."

link.springer.com/article/10.1

SpringerLinkScientometric indicators in research evaluation and research misconduct: analysis of the Russian university excellence initiative - ScientometricsThis study aimed to examine the impact of the Russian University Excellence Initiative (RUEI), also known as Project 5–100, on research misconduct in Russian higher education. Launched in 2013, the RUEI incentivized universities to increase the number of publications in internationally indexed journals. The analysis compares the prevalence of retracted publications—as a proxy for research misconduct—between universities that participated in the RUEI and a control group of universities that did not. A total of 2621 retracted papers affiliated with at least one Russian institution were identified. Of which 203 papers were indexed in Web of Science (WoS) and/or Scopus databases. The results showed that RUEI universities had a significantly higher number of retracted publications in WoS- and Scopus-indexed journals, suggesting that pressure to meet quantitative scientometric indicators may have encouraged unethical research practices and research misconduct. In addition, different reasons for retraction were found between publications indexed and not indexed in WoS and/or Scopus databases. These findings suggest that the direct and irresponsible use of scientometric indicators as performance measures may have unintended negative consequences that may undermine research integrity.
#retractions#researchintegrity#Russia
Public
Coalition for Networked Info

📍Research News You Can Use: The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) is developing the “Content-update Signaling and Alerting Protocol” to ensure #repositories and the research community are notified of critical updates—such as #retractions or corrections—to published literature.

Learn more at: youtu.be/4TB9OPIhG5c

youtu.be- YouTubeEnjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Continued thread
Public
petersuber

Update. "Mixed-gender teams are more likely to face #retractions than all-male or all-female teams, while individual authors are less prone to retractions…Male-led publications are often retracted for serious ethical violations, such as data falsification and plagiarism, while female-led publications primarily face procedural errors and updates in rapidly evolving fields. Promoting women to positions of responsibility in mix-collaborations may not only advances gender equity but also the accuracy of the scientific record."
doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00353

#Gender#ScholComm
Continued thread
Public *
petersuber

Update, on the #CDC order directing staffers to retract pending journal articles that use now-prohibited terms like #transgender and #immigrant (earlier in this thread) …

Bravo to the #BMJ (@bmj_latest) for calling this order "sinister and ludicrous."
bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r253

"This is not how it works. Medically relevant terminology and inclusive language follow evidence based reporting standards or are matters of individual journal style and policy. They do not follow political orders. Similarly, co-authors cannot simply scrub themselves from articles. Authorship gives credit and accountability for the work, and an article’s list of authors does not ghost contributors. If authors wish to withdraw submissions under review at a journal, this process is feasible should all of their co-authors agree. However, if somebody who merits inclusion in the authorship group of an article requests to be removed, even with the approval of the co-authors, this is a breach of publication ethics."

#Authorship#Retractions#ScholComm
Public *
petersuber

"Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [#CDC] were ordered late on Friday to withdraw any pending publications, at any scientific journal, that mention terms such as “transgender,” “immigrant,” “L.G.B.T.” or “pregnant people.”
nytimes.com/live/2025/02/01/us

When CDC employees were co-authors of such pending papers, they were ordered to write to the journals and ask to be removed as co-authors. When all co-authors were CDC employees, they were ordered to ask the journal to retract the article from consideration.

The New York Times · Canada and Mexico Move to Retaliate on Trump Tariff OrdersBy Matina Stevis-Gridneff
#Censorship#Retractions#ScholComm
Public
François Renaville 🇺🇦🇪🇺

Linking #citation and #retraction #data reveals the demographics of scientific #retractions among highly cited #authors

journals.plos.org/plosbiology/

journals.plos.orgLinking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authorsRetractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. Using a database that links retractions to the top 2% most highly-cited scientists across science, this study reveals that retraction rates varied by scientific discipline and scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volumes.
#research#ethics#publishing
Public *
petersuber

"The #CDC has instructed its scientists to #retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal, not merely its own internal periodicals…The move aims to ensure that no "forbidden terms" appear in the work. The policy includes manuscripts that are in the revision stages at journal (but not officially accepted) and those already accepted for publication but not yet live."
medpagetoday.com/opinion/faust

I trust MedPage Today, where this news appeared. But it only cites the author's Substack newsletter, which in turn cites nothing. Can anyone confirm this report?

www.medpagetoday.comOpinion | CDC Researchers Ordered to Retract Papers Submitted to All JournalsBanned terms must be scrubbed from CDC-authored manuscripts
#Retractions#ScholComm#Trump
Public
ResearchBuzz: Firehose

PLOS Biology: Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. “Retractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. It would be useful to generate databases where the presence of retractions can be linked to impact metrics of each scientist. We have thus incorporated […]

https://rbfirehose.com/2025/02/02/plos-biology-linking-citation-and-retraction-data-reveals-the-demographics-of-scientific-retractions-among-highly-cited-authors/

#scientists#science#retractions
Public
ResearchBuzz: Firehose

Ars Technica: Science paper piracy site Sci-Hub shares lots of retracted papers. “Despite losses in publishing industry lawsuits and attempts to block access, Sci-Hub continues to serve up research papers that would otherwise be protected by paywalls. But what it’s serving up may not always be the latest and greatest. Generally, when a paper is retracted for being invalid, publishers issue an […]

https://rbfirehose.com/2025/01/20/ars-technica-science-paper-piracy-site-sci-hub-shares-lots-of-retracted-papers/

ResearchBuzz: Firehose | Individual posts from ResearchBuzz · Ars Technica: Science paper piracy site Sci-Hub shares lots of retracted papers | ResearchBuzz: Firehose
More from ResearchBuzz: Firehose
#scihub#retractions#research
SearchLive feeds
About