Gene-Editing Inquiry, Patent Concerns, and Ongoing Academic Integrity Issues Highlighted in Recent Reports

If last week sped by for you, here’s a recap of some notable developments in the research and academic integrity sphere.

This week, Retraction Watch covered several significant issues:

• Investigations initiated by a journal and a university into a gene-editing death that emerged following reporting from Science-Retraction Watch.
• A journal is probing an apparent data mismatch in a climate change study.
• Exclusive insights revealed a news outlet suppressed a story regarding plagiarism accusations after a Cambridge professor hired a legal firm.
• Kaggle has removed a contentious stroke dataset due to copyright issues.
• Over 400 U.S. patents are now known to have cited retracted scientific papers.
• A Retraction Watch exposé about a "research factory" has sparked investigations and terminations as multiple preprints face withdrawal.
• A federal lawsuit has been filed against four leading publishers, accusing them of extorting article processing fees.

For those who missed it, the Hijacked Journal Checker now includes over 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database maintains more than 66,000 retractions, while our COVID-19 retraction list has risen to 650, and the mass resignations list exceeds 50 entries. We track these statistics and more, so if you appreciate our work, consider supporting us with a tax-deductible donation. Each contribution matters.

Looking beyond Retraction Watch, here are some other noteworthy discussions in the field (some may be behind paywalls or require registration):

• “The ADA must take accountability for a self-made mess”: Co-founders reflect on the American Diabetes Association's decline, arguing their initial praise has faded.
• Concerns about a psychedelic therapy paper facing retraction due to allegations of abuse flagged by the publishing journal.
• Discourse around AI in research: “AI is an accelerant, not the kindling. The underlying issue is the publish-or-perish mentality.”
• Researchers point out that nearly 88% of retracted articles from paper mills originate from Chinese researchers.
• Recent analyses indicate a troubling pattern of retractions linked to leadership in eight of India’s top 100 universities.
• Discussions on “Systems fail people: the phenomenon of dry labbing as a distinct type of scientific fraud.”
• A view on the shift in academic integrity, now regarded as a pedagogy of suspicion; many believe what’s often deemed misconduct results from inequitable skill acquisition opportunities.
• Insights regarding the involvement of paper mills in retracted systematic reviews and meta-analyses are emerging.
• A chemistry journal recently retracted a paper authored by a Russian Academy of Sciences official linked to previous controversies.
• The founder of Research Professional News has shared intentions to launch a new outlet following Clarivate’s decision to shutter the news site, as detailed here.
• A study examines the retraction dynamics surrounding multiple sclerosis and similar illnesses.
• MIT Press director asserts we are in a better position for open knowledge sharing.
• It’s noted that “it’s not science journalism’s role to enhance trust in science.”
• Research indicates predatory journals are publishing both undergraduate and AI-generated papers, calling for scrutiny.
• Publishing errors are highlighted, noting struggles when affiliation errors present research security concerns.
• Speculations circulate on AI’s role in altering peer review and what that means for medicine and pharmaceuticals.
• New tools are being developed for detecting hallucinated citations.
• Research analyzes how returnee deans influence academic publications in Chinese universities.
• Legal actions have been taken against 249 guest lecturers in India for submitting fraudulent PhD credentials.
• “Spin bias in scientific publishing: ensuring integrity in research reporting” raises important issues.
• As discussions about journal trust evolve, it’s essential to consider how journal credibility must adapt to be recognized by both humans and machines.
• Anna Abalkina, creator of the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker, recently won the Rosalind Franklin Prize for her contributions to scientific integrity.
• Reports indicate that African open-access journals rely on underrecognized labor.
• China has halted an experimental Alzheimer's procedure and detained its inventor, although international clinical trials continue for dcLVA.
• Research found articles published as preprints received citations 70 days sooner than those not published in this format.
• A court upheld a former professor’s sentence for coercing students to produce papers for his daughter’s admissions.
• Interestingly, over half of the leading AI startup companies have not published any research to date, raising questions about transparency.
• Recent discourse critiques the state of scientific paper publishing, suggesting peer review may be in crisis.
• The latest entry in a series highlighting “papers that should never have been published” features a paper by Thomas Count Dracula.
• A piece investigates the case of John Bell and his choice to publish foundational results in quantum mechanics in an obscure journal.

If you appreciate Retraction Watch, consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our endeavors. Follow us on X, Bluesky, like us on Facebook, connect with us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily newsletter. If you find a retraction we haven’t captured, please let us know here. For comments or feedback, contact us at [email protected].