Study on hydroxychloroquine by Didier Raoult and colleagues gets pulled on ethical and scientific grounds

Predatory journals - even the term is controversial - have been a vexing problem for many years, and have certainly been a subject of coverage at Retraction Watch and elsewhere.

Researchers found 127 systematic reviews and clinical guidelines that cited already retracted papers.

Hundreds of junk-science papers have been retracted from reputable journals after fraudsters used 'special issues' to manipulate the publication process. And the problem is growing.

The nonsensical computer-generated articles, spotted years after the problem was first seen, could lead to a wave of retractions.

Some publishers say they are battling industrialized cheating. A Nature analysis examines the 'paper mill' problem - and how editors are trying to cope.

At the risk of breaking the Fourth Wall, here's a story about peer reviews that weren't - and shouldn't have been.

A preprint promoted by a member of the UK Parliament for claiming to show that vitamin D led to an “80% reduction in need for ICU and a 60% reduction in deaths” has been removed from a server used by The Lancet family of journals.

Questioned psychology papers linger on in meta-analyses.

Most researchers don't intend to cite retracted papers, but it can have serious consequences for science.

New policy comes after serious quality control questions were raised about the data relied on by a study in the medical journal

Science has issued an expression of concern for a paper it published earlier this summer after readers pointed out suspect images in the work.

A public health journal will be retracting a paper that argued for the adoption of homeopathy in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, according to the editor in chief.

Nature has retracted a recent commentary after the author complained that he had been misled by the relationship of the publication to a financial sponsor and told to avoid critiquing work from the institution. The journal says it is revisiting its “editorial guidelines and processes” in the wake of the case. 

A report on masks relied on unfounded assumptions, researchers charged, and the authors were permitted to choose their own reviewers.

Don't blame last week's journal retractions on the scary pace of the pandemic. "Once-in-a-lifetime" scandals like this seem to happen all the time.

The decision comes as new details emerge in the scandal that has ignited a firestorm of controversy in the scientific community.