Key Developments in Research Integrity: OpenAI's Preprint Withdrawal and More

If your week sped by — ours certainly did — let's catch up on the noteworthy events that may have slipped under your radar.

This week, some critical happenings at Retraction Watch include:

• The editor-in-chief has stepped down amid investigations concerning citation manipulation and data inaccuracies.
• A wildlife journal released corrections pertaining to missing ethics statements.
• A paleontologist is seeking to retract a paper that claims his fossil was a forgery. He’s asking for it to be removed.
• OpenAI withdrew three preprints shortly after unveiling a compilation of 722 manuscripts focused on unsolved mathematical issues.
• The Institute of Physics (IOP) has retracted close to 100 conference papers due to problems with language quality.

In case you missed it, the Hijacked Journal Checker has exceeded 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database now tracks over 67,000 retractions, while our list of COVID-19 retractions nears 700. Our mass resignations list has surpassed 50 entries. We continuously monitor these developments and more. If you find our work valuable, consider making a tax-deductible contribution; every dollar is appreciated.

Now, here’s a snapshot of what else is happening in the academic world (some items might be paywalled or require free registration):

• “It’s been an open secret for quite some time that Informa might sell Taylor & Francis if an acceptable offer arises.”
• “arXiv’s recently introduced preprint submission cap has sparked divided opinions.”
• India’s NIRF university rankings have been delayed as the board mulls over “potentially removing” repeated misconduct offenders following the inclusion of retraction data in assessments.
• The Yannick Griep case illustrates why integrity issues in science remain persistent and outlines possible solutions to address them.
• “Can you identify flaws in research through statistical sleuthing?”: A podcast discussing the recent Dan Ariely retraction.
• Research indicates the impact of paper mills may begin to influence LLM query outcomes, according to one researcher.
• Scientists don’t possess a “divine drive keeping them away from the temptations of the real world,” remarked Nick Brown.
• The pervasive issue of AI within academic publishing has been acknowledged in a discussion about infrastructural failures and misconduct among seven major publishers.
• The question “Who bears the cost of peer review?” is increasingly relevant as debates around funding continue.
• Ethicists argue against mandates for AI prompt disclosure, while a composer criticized for a theoretical physics paper responds, stating that AI firms have disrupted academic standards.
• What do the editors of Science, Nature, Cell, and NEJM AI believe is necessary regarding AI contributions in academic authorship?
• Learn about the Limited Communication of Corrections affecting users of scholarly platforms.
• Publishers are set to share 20 million research papers with an AI start-up.
• The CDC is proceeding with a previously shelved controversial hepatitis B vaccine study, despite ethical concerns raised by Arthur Caplan and Jonathan Moreno regarding its publication.
• Discussions on if AI should assume a role in the peer review process continue alongside conversations about the implications of AI in peer review.
• A researcher suggests preprint servers should adopt a mandatory data sanitization checklist during submissions to prevent the leaking of sensitive information.
• Authors are advocating against using the term ‘scientist’ to describe AI agents within scholarly publishing to avoid confusion.
• “OpenAI has parted ways with researchers for allegedly leaking information to an AI safety group,” with the impacted researchers disputing the misconduct claims and warning of a chilling effect in an open letter.
• A single study from Iran reportedly altered meta-analyses favoring antidepressant use in children, as noted by its authors.
• A former university president has added a former vice president to a defamation lawsuit following plagiarism allegations.
• Despite a wave of press releases heralding success, “every outcome in the U.S. News rankings showed nothing but positivity this year,” according to reports analyzing discrepancies in college performances.
• “AI systems struggle with interpreting scientific findings. What solutions exist?
• “Top ten priorities for scholarly publishing up to 2027.”
• Did Rosalind Franklin truly overlook the helix in her famous DNA image? Not quite.

Upcoming Talk

• Join us for “Why Retractions Are on the Rise and Why That’s Good News,” a seminar featuring Ivan Oransky, taking place on October 19 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health (and virtually).

If you appreciate Retraction Watch, consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our efforts, follow us on X, or Bluesky, like our page on Facebook, and connect with us on LinkedIn. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily newsletter. If you discover a retraction not included in our database, please inform us here. For comments or feedback, reach us at [email protected].