University of Wollongong epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz speaks with The Scientist about his team’s finding that flawed and fraudulent COVID-19 research continues to be cited.

The retracted studies were coauthored by a scientist who worked on an Alzheimer’s therapy in development by Cassava Sciences, a company reportedly under investigation for providing falsified data to the FDA.

The Scientist interviewed clinical pharmacologist Clara Locher, coauthor of a new survey aimed at detecting editorial bias, regarding her team’s findings about biomedical publishing.

Many scientists have turned to preprints to rapidly disseminate their research on COVID-19, but some disagree with this approach.

The study, published in a peer-reviewed journal, has attracted widespread derision from researchers.

Illinois-based Surgisphere Corporation had a brief moment in the limelight this year following its infamous study of hydroxychloroquine. But the impact of the company’s deception reverberated across world.

The high-profile retractions of two COVID-19 studies stunned the scientific community earlier this year and prompted calls for reviews of how science is conducted, published, and acted upon. The warning signs had been there all along.

The changes, which affect the declarations authors have to sign and the peer-review process, have received a mixed response from the scientific community.

Criticism of the paper first surfaced in 1994, and its author was accused of scientific misconduct.

The manuscript had amassed more than 50 comments about problematic figures and data on PubPeer.

Problems with Brian Wansink’s research articles surfaced in 2017 and have now resulted in 13 retractions total.

The authors of a preprint recommend that journals implement better image screening procedures before publishing articles.

Alfredo Fusco, a once prominent cancer researcher, has been under investigation for alleged research misconduct since 2012.

The scientist was a member of a stem cell research team led by Nobel laureate Shinya Yamanaka. 

Nineteen researchers have stepped down after the journal decided not to retract a paper that they say plagiarized the work of a Johns Hopkins biomedical scientist.

New papers from a cancer journal once named as a possibly predatory publication will no longer appear in the widely used research database.

Authors of rescinded papers see a 10 percent to 20 percent decline in citation rates for their other publications.