Tag

Research Integrity

All articles tagged with #research integrity

science2 days ago•4 min saved

Zurich neuropathologist cleared in misconduct probe, but seven papers flagged for errors

After reviewing 36 publications from 1996–2023, the University of Zurich cleared Adriano Aguzzi of research misconduct, finding no proven intent or negligence, though seven papers contained scientifically significant errors and should be retracted or corrected; two papers have already been retracted, sparking calls for broader accountability for co-authors. Aguzzi plans to correct the record and will continue not-for-profit research via a foundation, while experts urge improved data preservation and independent verification of key results.

via The Transmitter|

#adriano-aguzzi #pubpeer #research-integrity

science9 days ago•7 min saved

Paper mills inflate cancer research metrics by doubling citations

A large analysis of 33,159 papers across 20 high‑impact molecular-oncology journals finds papers likely produced by paper mills receive about twice as many citations as genuine papers, often citing other suspect papers and inflating journal impact factors. Using a BERT-based detector on bioscience articles, 12.3% of papers were flagged; Nature Cancer had none; patterns suggest coordinated manipulation and risks for publishers, though some false positives may exist.

via Nature|

#cancer-research #citations #impact-factor

technology1 month ago•6 min saved

Pre-submission tool flags suspect journals

A free platform called Journal Trends analyzes journal publishing patterns using OpenAlex data and the Problematic Paper Screener to help researchers identify potentially unreliable journals before submitting manuscripts, highlighting red flags such as sudden surges in papers from a single country; while spikes aren’t definitive proof of misconduct, the tool can aid due diligence and integrity investigations and inform delisting and indexing considerations like Scopus.

via Nature|

#journal-trends #openalex #problematic-paper-screener

health1 month ago•4 min saved

Retraction casts doubt on long-published autism-vaccine link study

A 16-year-old study claiming that infant hepatitis B vaccination increases autism risk has been retracted for fundamental methodological flaws, including too few autism cases (31) and overstated causality. The authors dispute the withdrawal, and the paper had previously been cited in CDC/ACIP discussions, influencing vaccine-safety reviews before the retraction was issued.

via Retraction Watch|

#autism #health #hepatitis-b

science1 month ago•5 min saved

Funding clamps, doctored data claims, and AI in science dominate Retraction Watch’s Weekend Reads

Retraction Watch’s Weekend Reads roundup highlights the White House's plan to tighten grant oversight and ban federal funding for open-access fees, sleuths’ claims that Thermo Fisher doctored data to sell antibodies, debates in China about Nature’s reputation amid AI-generated cover edits, and a broad slate of integrity and publishing stories—from peer-review issues and funding incentives to data-management reforms—plus resources like the Retraction Watch Database and the Ctrl-Z Award.

via Retraction Watch|

#biotechnology #research-integrity #science

science2 months ago•5 min saved

AI-generated fake citations flood scientific literature, study finds

A Lancet study led by Columbia University researchers finds a growing share of citations in scientific papers are fabricated or AI-generated. Analyzing 2 million papers and 97 million citations, they identified about 4,000 fabricated references across 2,800 papers, with the rate rising from 2023 to 2025 and into early 2026. The rising prevalence could skew systematic reviews and clinical guidelines and reflects broader shifts in citation culture toward checklist-style referencing. Publishers report varying levels of tooling to flag or validate citations, underscoring the need for stronger verification as AI use in research grows.

via statnews.com|

#academic-publishing #ai #fabricated-citations

technology2 months ago•11 min saved

Why Some Researchers Are Choosing to Skip Generative AI

A Nature Career feature profiles researchers who deliberately avoid generative AI, citing ethics (copyright and consent), transparency concerns, environmental costs, and a belief that relying on AI can undermine skill development; while surveys show mixed adoption with some using AI for editing or literature review, many academics argue the downsides—such as hallucinations and questionable accuracy—mean AI should be restricted in certain tasks and prompts a rethink of training and assessment in science.

via Nature|

#academia #environmental-impact #ethics

science2 months ago•6 min saved

Guest-Edited Journals Face Scrutiny Over Quality and Retractions

The BMJ group’s retraction of nearly an entire guest-edited special issue on cancer immunotherapies highlights broader worries about guest-edited publishing: rapid, high-volume special issues driven by APCs can weaken peer review, inflate researchers’ CVs, and undermine research integrity, prompting calls for tighter editorial oversight and reforms in author-pay models and funding practices.

via statnews.com|

#article-processing-charges #guest-editors #peer-review

science2 months ago•8 min saved

Dataset unmasks the price range of fake first-author slots in the paper-mill market

A dataset called BuyTheBy compiles over 18,000 advertisements from seven paper mills across multiple countries, revealing first-author slots selling for roughly $56 to $5,631 and showing some ads align with published papers. The study notes the market is evolving with AI, making enforcement difficult, but provides a starting point for publishers to curb fraud. The dataset isn’t comprehensive (omits Iran/China mills) and can’t confirm completion of purchases or final publications.

via Retraction Watch|

#academic-publishing #authorship-fraud #buytheby

science3 months ago•5 min saved

LLMs Aren’t the Problem, Cash-for-Review Fails, and Vaping Studies Reveal Flaws

Retraction Watch’s weekend digest notes that large language models aren’t the core issue in science publishing, reports that offering cash to spot errors doesn’t work, and spotlights vaping studies with numerous flaws and few retractions, while also outlining ongoing investigations and policy discussions around scientific integrity and publishing practices.

via Retraction Watch|

#llms #peer-review #research-integrity

technology4 months ago•7 min saved

AI Slop Tests the Limits of Computer Science Publishing

Nature reports that a surge of AI-generated, low-quality submissions—dubbed 'AI slop'—is flooding computer science journals and conferences, with ICML 2026 receiving over 24,000 papers and arXiv submissions up more than 50% since ChatGPT; some papers are AI-generated or contain fabrications, prompting arXiv and conference policy changes, expanded reviewer pools, and debates about moving to rolling-journal models to preserve research integrity.

via Nature|

#ai #arxiv #machine-learning

science5 months ago•6 min saved

Stolen study, sold authorship, and a plagiarism trap for the victim

A Bengaluru economist discovers her study was stolen and published by others, with authorship slots allegedly sold on Telegram for roughly $165–$200. The misappropriated paper, later indexed by a different journal, prompts plagiarism concerns when editors find it nearly identical to her rejected draft. The incident underscores how paper mills operate, the push for retractions, and ongoing investigations by publishers, even as some listed authors deny involvement.

via Retraction Watch|

#authorship #authorship-marketplaces #note-extra-tag-not-allowed

artificial-intelligence5 months ago•16 min saved

AI Flood Threatens Trust in Scientific Publishing

A Gizmodo.io9 piece argues that AI-generated or AI-augmented papers are flooding arXiv, undermining traditional signals of quality and risking the reliability of scientific publishing. While AI can help with language barriers, analyses show AI-authored submissions are more prolific and standard quality indicators are becoming less reliable as publication volume rises; incidents like a Nature report about a German researcher misusing ChatGPT and AI-generated data in cancer research illustrate the potential for fraud. The article warns this could overwhelm scholarly communication unless reviewers and repositories tighten safeguards.

via Gizmodo|

#artificial-intelligence #arxiv #peer-review

science5 months ago•8 min saved

AI-suspected technobabble prompts Springer Nature inquiry into prolific editor

A Turkish associate professor and editor, Eren Öğüt, faces a Springer Nature investigation after reviewers flagged multiple 2025 papers that read like technobabble, use irrelevant MATLAB code, and lack reproducible data or overlaid brain images. His unusually high volume of peer reviews (about 650 in one year) and roles as editor across journals raise concerns about editorial bias and integrity, with critics noting AI-assisted editing and a pattern of single-authored works that resemble prior templates. The investigation focuses on methodological gaps, data sharing, and potential misrepresentation of results in Neuroinformatics and related journals.

via Retraction Watch|

#academic-publishing #ai-in-research #neuroimaging

science8 months ago•2 min saved

Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers List Faces Criticism and Changes

The Highly Cited Researchers list has updated its methodology for 2025 to exclude scientists associated with ethical breaches, such as excessive self-citation, leading to the re-inclusion of mathematicians after two years of exclusion due to suspicious citation patterns. The new rules aim to improve the list's integrity by removing papers linked to previous research misconduct, although this may inadvertently exclude some deserving scientists. The list now recognizes 6,868 researchers across various fields, with particular attention to addressing gaming of citation metrics, especially in mathematics.

via Nature|

#citation-ethics #clarivate #highly-cited-researchers