📄🔍 Zurückgezogene Artikel zitieren, ohne es zu merken?
Retractions rechtzeitig zu erkennen ist gar nicht so einfach. Allein 2023 wurden weltweit mehr als 10.000 wissenschaftliche Artikel zurückgezogen. Mit Retraction Watch und dem Zotero-Plugin behält man den Überblick und erkennt Retractions direkt in der eigenen Literaturverwaltung.
#RetractionWatch #Retractions #Zotero #GuteWissenschaftlichePraxis #OpenScience #Openness
https://www.tub.tuhh.de/blog/2026/02/23/retraction-watch-zurueckgezogene-artikel/
Somebody managed to wind their shorts into a painful twist for all.
"The Authors have retracted this Article as they could not reach agreement on data ownership. The data used in this study originated from the thesis work of the first author and was supervised by a researcher who is not listed as an author and who did not grant permission for the use of the data."
Ars Technica: Editor’s Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations. “That this happened at Ars is especially distressing. We have covered the risks of overreliance on AI tools for years, and our written policy reflects those concerns. In this case, fabricated quotations were published in a manner inconsistent with that policy. We have reviewed recent work and have not […]
https://rbfirehose.com/2026/02/16/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations-ars-technica/Can we trust “guidelines on how to write a scientific paper”? We analysed 71 “Write a Scientific Paper” guidelines that were widely used and cited for years as best practices.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2026.2622096
Facts:
▪️ 555 citations
▪️ 48 papers carry an editorial expression of concern
▪️ 30 (42%) have been retracted!
#AcademicPublishing #ResearchIntegrity #Retractions #ScholarlyCommunication #Bibliometrics #PublicationEthics #PeerReview
New data suggest that just like regular journals (i.e., non-GlamMagz), also female authors really do seem to publish higher quality articles - which, consequently, leads to fewer #retractions for both:
https://bjoern.brembs.net/2026/01/retraction-data-are-still-useless-almost/
Retractions of scholarly articles are a rare event, affecting only about 0.02-0.04% of articles in total (but yearly rates are going up dramatically). This means that data about retractions are not even close to being representative of the scholarly literature […] <a class="more-link" href="https://bjoern.brembs.net/2026/01/retraction-data-are-still-useless-almost/">↓ Read the rest of this entry...</a>
Retraction data are still useless – almost
Retractions of scholarly articles are a rare event, affecting only about 0.02-0.04% of articles in total (but yearly rates are going up dramatically). This means that data about retractions are not even close to being representative of the scholarly literature at large. In particular, when the non-retracted literature contains anything from 40% to over 80% of unreliable work, even today's retraction rates of around 0.2% or so seem totally negligible, in the grand scheme of things. After all, […]https://bjoern.brembs.net/2026/01/retraction-data-are-still-useless-almost/
A rare insight into COPE's Facilitation & Integrity Subcommittee: they helped guide a journal into engaging with an Austrian investigation, leading to a retraction.
It's usually unsung work, much of it done by volunteers from COPE council.
#CommitteeOnPublicationEthics #Retractions #PublicationEthics #Homeopathy
#Elsevier finally (after 25 years) retracted the primary study concluding that #glyphosate is safe for humans. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the #Roundup herbicide, manufactured by #Monsanto.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
h/t @civodul.
https://fediscience.org/@civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr/115661046263238211
Among the grounds for the retraction:
* "The article's conclusions…are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto."
* "Employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors."
* "The authors may have received [undisclosed] financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article."
Remember that in 2020, the #Trump #EPA "relied almost entirely on #Monsanto studies" to conclude that Roundup was safe.
https://x.com/petersuber/status/1224039859272212480
In 2016, Monsanto made a show of sharing its research on glyphosate with the public. But instead of making it #OpenAccess, it put print copies in a room in Brussels, required registration to use the room, and then closed the room after two months.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190119214350/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/ioy1fVqaLy1
Two questions for follow up studies:
1. Why did Elsevier's 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 need 25 years to retract this piece of Monsanto advertising?
2. What harm did the article cause during the last 25 years?
Dorothy Bishop
Universitätsbibliothek TUHH
Doug Bostrom
ResearchBuzz: Firehose
Serhii Nazarovets
Björn Brembs
Björn Brembs
Matt Hodgkinson
petersuber