{"id":798613,"date":"2026-10-11T00:28:10","date_gmt":"2026-10-11T00:28:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/798613\/"},"modified":"2026-10-11T00:28:10","modified_gmt":"2026-10-11T00:28:10","slug":"weekend-reads-openais-preprint-dump-taylor-arxivs-preprint-cap-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/798613\/","title":{"rendered":"Weekend reads: OpenAI\u2019s preprint dump; Taylor & Francis to leave Informa; arXiv\u2019s preprint cap \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

If your week flew by \u2014 we know ours did \u2014 catch up here with what you might have missed.<\/p>\n

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

In case you missed the news<\/a>, the Hijacked Journal Checker<\/a> now has more than 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database<\/a> has over 67,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions<\/a> is approaching 700, and our mass resignations list<\/a> 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.<\/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

\u201cIt\u2019s been an open secret for many years that Informa would consider selling Taylor & Francis<\/a> if the price was right.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201carXiv\u2019s new<\/a> preprint submission cap divides opinion<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

India\u2019s NIRF university rankings delayed as board considers \u201cdebarring\u201d repeat misconduct offenders<\/a> after including retraction data in their analysis.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Yannick Griep case<\/a> \u201creveals why cheating in science is so persistent, and what can be done about it<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cStatistical Sleuthing: Can you spot a problem<\/a>?\u201d: A podcast featuring the recent Dan Ariely retraction<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cEffect of research paper mills enough to start affecting LLM query results<\/a>,\u201d says researcher.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Scientists don\u2019t have a \u201creligious calling that keeps them away from the temptations of the real world<\/a>,\u201d says Nick Brown.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe systemic breach of AI in academic publishing: Infrastructural failures and authorial misconduct across seven major publishers<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPeer review isn\u2019t free. So who pays<\/a>?\u201d<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t mandate AI prompt disclosure, argue ethicists<\/a>. A composer who drew criticism<\/a> for publishing a paper on theoretical physics responds<\/a>, and says \u201cAI companies have hijacked academic norms<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c\u200bThe editors-in-chief of Science, Nature, Cell, and NEJM AI on what journals now require when AI does the analysis, and who gets the credit<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Limited Communication of Corrections<\/a> to Users of Scholarly Platforms.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPublishers to share 20 million research papers<\/a> with AI start-up.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cCDC Is Moving Forward With a Previously Shelved Controversial Hepatitis B Vaccine Study<\/a>.\u201d Arthur Caplan and Jonathan Moreno previously wrote \u201cThe CDC hepatitis B study is unethical and must never be published<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cShould AI Have a Role in Peer Review<\/a>?\u201d and \u201cThe Conversation We\u2019re Not Having<\/a> about AI in Peer Review.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAvailable upon reasonable request: the authorship function that was already dead<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018Organized academic harassment<\/a>\u2019 at Hokkaido University Chemistry Department.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat can chemists learn from how AI is shaking up mathematics<\/a>?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fast-track to publication: bibliometric analysis of rapid service fees<\/a> in scholarly publishing.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEditors are facing an influx of AI-written pitches, including at science publications like mine. What now<\/a>?\u201d<\/p>\n

Journal editors on how they are coping with \u201cthe impacts of generative artificial intelligence on scholarly publications<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Researcher proposes preprint servers \u201cintegrate a mandatory data sanitization checklist<\/a> into the submission pipeline\u201d to prevent leaking sensitive information<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Authors \u201creject the use of the term \u2018scientist<\/a>\u2019\u201d to refer to AI agents in scholarly publishing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOpenAI Fires Researchers for Allegedly Sharing Information with AI Safety Group<\/a>.\u201d The researchers \u201cdispute misconduct claims, warn of chilling effect<\/a>\u201d in open letter<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne small study in Iran swayed meta-analyses in favour of antidepressant use in children<\/a>, researchers say.\u201d<\/p>\n

Former university president added former school vice president to defamation lawsuit<\/a> following plagiarism accusations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cEvery outcome in the U.S. News rankings seemed to be good news this year according to a wave of press releases that touted how well colleges performed\u2014even in cases where they slipped<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAI agents are not good at interpreting science. What can be done<\/a>?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cTen Priorities for Scholarly Publishing through 2027<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHow did Rosalind Franklin miss the helix in her iconic DNA image? She didn\u2019t<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Upcoming Talk<\/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\tRelated\n<\/p>\n