{"id":141612,"date":"2025-11-15T18:11:12","date_gmt":"2025-11-15T18:11:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/141612\/"},"modified":"2025-11-15T18:11:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-15T18:11:12","slug":"debunking-when-prophecy-fails-godfather-of-ai-first-to-reach-1-million-citations-cake-causes-herpes-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/141612\/","title":{"rendered":"Debunking \u2018When Prophecy Fails\u2019; \u2018Godfather of AI\u2019 first to reach 1 million citations; \u2018Cake causes herpes?\u2019 \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25<\/a>?<\/p>\n

The week at Retraction Watch featured:<\/p>\n

Did you know that Retraction Watch and the Retraction Watch Database are\u00a0 projects of The Center of Scientific Integrity<\/a>?\u00a0 Others include the Medical Evidence Project<\/a>, the Hijacked Journal Checker<\/a>, and the Sleuths in Residence Program<\/a>. Help support this work<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):<\/p>\n

\u201cDebunking \u2018When Prophecy Fails’\u201d: Scholar claims documents reveal \u201cethical violations by the researchers<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018Godfather of AI\u2019 becomes first person to hit one million citations<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018Cake causes herpes?\u2019 \u2013 promiscuous dichotomisation induces false positives<\/a>,\u201d by James Heathers of the Medical Evidence Project<\/a> and David Robert Grimes, one of our Sleuths in Residence<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cParalysed patients left in dark after trial helping them to walk thrown into chaos<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cRecommendations for Scholarly Publishers and Journal Editors to Mitigate Barriers to Open Access Publishing for Researchers with Weak Institutional Ties<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cShadow scholars: inside Kenya\u2019s multibillion-dollar fake-essay industry<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

A \u201ccase study in using flimsy copyright claims<\/a> to inhibit research,\u201d for which papers using the Morisky Medical Adherence Scale continue to face retractions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

University finds \u201cnon-existent AI-generated references in paper; prof. says content not fabricated<\/a>.\u201d Meanwhile, the journal defends the work<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Former professor\u2019s case against German university, which fired her for violating academic standards, reaches federal court<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cPressure to publish is rising as research time shrinks<\/a>, finds survey of scientists<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Researchers find \u201cnational tendencies in self-reference behavior may be related to societal-level trust within science<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018Independent\u2019 expert who helped shape global vaping debate was paid thousands by Juul<\/a>.\u201d He also had a paper \u2014 linking smoking to lower COVID-19 risk \u2014 retracted in 2021<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018Nobody knows what is still self-invented.\u2019: How AI-generated fake research undermines trust in science<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cCan a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers<\/a>?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe inner workings of a paper mill\u201d: A pharmacologist on his \u201csting operation<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cTo reform universities, first tackle global rankings<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Researchers look into<\/a> the \u201cemerging threat\u201d of papers with \u201chidden, injected prompts designed to manipulate AI [peer] reviewers into providing overly favorable evaluations.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDrivers and penalties of retraction<\/a>: An empirical study of Chinese medical researchers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Researchers find \u201cwomen\u2019s representation among authors of retracted papers seems slightly lower than their representation as authors of scientific papers overall<\/a>.\u201d Another study looks at gender representation in highly cited authors<\/a>. A link to two of<\/a> our stories<\/a> looking into gender differences in retraction rates.<\/p>\n

\u201cFeasibility and Outcomes of a Scientist-Designed Peer Review Model Separating Quality and Impact<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Study looks at \u201ccharacteristics, patterns, and causes of retractions in pediatric literature<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPeer Review Is Broken. Here\u2019s How to Fix It<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cU.S. Congress considers sweeping ban on Chinese collaborations<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe \u2018Free lunches\u2019 index for assessing academics: a not entirely serious proposal<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Upcoming talks<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat to do next?<\/a>\u201d with our Ivan Oransky (November 18, International Research Integrity Conference, Sydney)<\/p>\n

\u201cRetractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough<\/a>\u201d with our Ivan Oransky (November 19, Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-research and Open Science 2025 Conference, University of Sydney)<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tProcessing\u2026\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tSuccess! You’re on the list.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tWhoops! There was an error and we couldn’t process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n