If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 68,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is approaching 800, and our mass resignations list has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “I Used AI to Fake a Scientific Paper. Here’s What Happened.”
• “Record-breaking retraction: scholarly publisher pulls 1,400 conference papers on one day.”
• “AI is shaking up math. But can its proofs be trusted?”
• After looking at fabricated references in biomedical literature earlier this year, researchers evaluate 500,000 science, engineering and computing papers. 
• ADA “says ‘threat’ preceded members’ ejections, but admits policies were unclear.” 
• “The Case of the Should-Be-Missing Proteins“: On Sholto David’s search for papers with “erroneous claims of protein expression.” 
• “UK Biobank set to reopen to researchers after data breach.”
• “Trusted journal lists come to OpenAlex.”
• “Whistleblowing and retractions concerning Iran-affiliated medical research: motives and editorial perspectives.” 
• Preprint authors list three “red flags” that could “unmask dodgy journals.” 
• Dartmouth provost resigns after his work was flagged as written by AI.  
• “Stanford prison experiment: why do controversial psychology studies still have such a hold on us?” 
• Researchers find “dominance of scientific elite” in management research. We covered a similar case in business journals last year.  
• “Revisiting Open Science in the Age of AI.”
• As researchers grapple with AI peer review, Springer Nature and Google DeepMind partner to create AI peer review assistant. 
• “When AI Becomes the Better Referee.”
• Proportion of possible AI-generated abstracts in medical journals was higher in fully open-access journals, preprint finds.  
• “Clique or journal community – Where does accountability lie in editorial decision making?”
• “39 meta-analyses, 39 positive findings: An audit finds serious flaws in research on AI in education.”
• “Protest planned at Oxford University talk by academic who accused Jason Arday of plagiarism.”
• “Registered Reports as the default pathway for confirmatory publication.”
• “A Dutch journalist shoots down an article in the American Journal of Political Science.” 
• “Did you cite your sources? Why bibliography matters.”
• “Ecology is now ready for ‘Big Code’ and the errors it hides.”
• “Compensate peer reviewers; do not conscript them.”
• “Preprint-centric publishing model gets major boost” in Europe. 
• “Self-confessed Fabrications and Rise of TBDs.”
• “Giving AI a seat at the peer review table.”
• “You are the one shaping the immediate future of science, and if you do it right you contribute directly to its future standing in society. But if you lie about your work, you do not deserve a place in this community.”

Upcoming Talk

“Rethinking Incentives to Publish: Aligning Accountability Across Stakeholders,” a 2026 Council of Science Editors Fall Virtual Symposium session featuring our Ivan Oransky (November 19, virtual)

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

Related