News Articles on Scientific Practice and Scientific Dysfunction (2020)


News Articles 2020:


Nobel winner retracts paper from Science (Retraction Watch, January 2, 2020)

Nobel Prize-winning scientist Frances Arnold retracts paper (BBC News, January 3, 2020)

Prominent cancer researcher loses nine papers, making 10 (Retraction Watch, January 3, 2020)

A Meta-Psychological Perspective on the Decade of Replication Failures in Social Psychology (Replicability-Index, January 5, 2020)

Out of the Darkness (ScienceEditor, January 7, 2020)

Psychology looks to physics to solve replication crisis (Medium, January 7, 2020)

UK Group Tackles Reproducibility in Research (TheScientist, January 7, 2020)

On the “reproducibility crisis” in science (JamesMckay, January 8, 2020)

Two retractions prove fresh is best (Retraction Watch, January 9, 2020)

There are retractors in plastic surgery — and not just of the instrument kind (Retraction Watch, January 10, 2020)

Georgia State researcher up to nine retractions disagrees with the journal (Retraction Watch, January 13, 2020)

The limits of replicability (Springer Link, January 15, 2020)

Low replicability can support robust and efficient science (Nature, January 17, 2020)

Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published (Springer Link, January 17, 2020)

Tired of waiting for a university, a publisher commissions its own investigation — and retracts two papers (Retraction Watch, January 17, 2020)

Measuring the world of social phenomena (EurekAlert!, January 20, 2020)

Design And Analysis Of Replication Studies (Center for Reproducible Science, January 22, 2020)

Has reproducibility improved? Introducing the Transparency and Rigor Index (Retraction Watch, January 22, 2020)

Group that reused cheese cloth in different experiments up to six retractions (Retraction Watch, January 23, 2020)

5 important medical studies that were later retracted (MDLinx, January 24, 2020)

Digging deeper: Authors retract soil paper so “the error we made does not propagate” (Retraction Watch, January 24, 2020)

Duplicated study of apologizers leads to a retraction — and an apology (Retraction Watch, January 27, 2020)

Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine (Frontiers, January 28, 2020)

Authors questioning papers at nearly two dozen journals in wake of spider paper retraction (Retraction Watch, January 29, 2020)

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study (PLOS One, January 30, 2020)

NEJM paper retracted for “inaccuracies in the analytic database and data analyses” (Retraction Watch, January 30, 2020)

Measuring Research Transparency (Inside Higher Ed, January 31, 2020)


Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and incidence of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis (Oxford Academic, February 2020)

A preprint on coronavirus was retracted over the weekend. Here’s why that was a good moment for science. (Retraction Watch, February 3, 2020)

Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning (The Gradient, February 6, 2020)

Journal flags papers two years after university investigation finds researcher faked data (Retraction Watch, February 7, 2020)

‘Those unfortunate events:’ Second retraction for stem cell scientist in Canada accused of misconduct (Retraction Watch, February 10, 2020)

Addressing the Replication and Reproducibility Crisis in R&D Organizations (Dotmatics, February 11, 2020)

Harvard group retracts Nature paper (Retraction Watch, February 11, 2020)

Irreproducibility is not a sign of failure, but an inspiration for fresh ideas (Nature, February 12, 2020)

Journals retract 13 papers by Hans Eysenck, flag 61, some 60 years old (Retraction Watch, February 12, 2020)

Fourth retraction for Haruko Obokata, focus of STAP cell scandal, after Harvard investigation (Retraction Watch, February 13, 2020)

Platelet‐rich plasma in noninvasive procedures for atrophic acne scars: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (Wiley, February 15, 2020)

The Reproducibility Crisis: An Interview with Prof. Dorothy Bishop (BackReaction, February 15, 2020)

The Reproducibility Crisis (Supply Chain Market Research, February 16, 2020)

Retractions could mean fewer submissions for journals, says new analysis (Retraction Watch, February 17, 2020)

Journal retracts hotly contested paper on vaping and heart attacks (Retraction Watch, February 18, 2020)

How a ‘no raw data, no science’ outlook can resolve the reproducibility crisis in science (EurekAlert!, February 20, 2020)

No Raw Data, No Science: Another Possible Source Of The Reproducibility Crisis (Global Warming Policy Forum, February 21, 2020)

Retraction notice claims authors submitted ‘fictional’ science (Retraction Watch, February 21, 2020)

How to Distinguish Best Evidence from Bias: A Basic Guide to Understanding a Systematic Review. (Europe PMC, February 23, 2020)

Reproducibility (WUWT, February 23, 2020)

Association between MIR499A rs3746444 polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis (Nature Report, February 26, 2020)

Journal founded by Hans Eysenck issues expressions of concern for his papers, despite calls by university to retract (Retraction Watch, February 26, 2020)

Letter on vaping science paper earns expression of concern because author made up a degree (Retraction Watch, February 27, 2020)

How robust is our cumulative knowledge on turnover? (Springer Link, February 28, 2020)


Investigation at Japanese university leads to four retractions (Retractions Watch, March 6, 2020)

Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis (BMC Nature, March 9, 2020)

‘I shot at my own foot with my own gun’: Journal rebuffs attempt at un-retraction (Retraction Watch, March 12, 2020)

Process Tracing Methods in Social Psychology (ScienceDirect, March 15, 2020)

A controlled trial for reproducibility (Nature, March 16, 2020)

Journal slaps 13 expressions of concern on papers suspected of being from a paper mill (Retraction Watch, March 18, 2020)

Researcher loses PhD after investigation finds he faked data (Retraction Watch, March 19, 2020)

Frustrated by a university’s lack of action, a journal retracts (Retraction Watch, March 20, 2020)

The Use of Research Methods in Psychological Research: A Systematised Review (Frontiers, March 20, 2020)

Nature paper on cancer retracted after years of scrutiny (Retraction Watch, March 23, 2020)

Conventional Publication Bias Correction Methods (PsyArXIV, March 24, 2020)

U Maryland group up to three retractions following investigation (Retraction Watch, March 24, 2020)

COVID-19 Research in Brief (Nature, March 27, 2020)

Estimating the effect of spillovers on exports: a meta-analysis (Springer Link, March 27, 2020)

Former UCSD prof who resigned amid investigation into China ties retracts paper for ‘inadvertently misidentified’ images (Retraction Watch, March 30, 2020)

A tale of one exceedingly clear retraction notice, and two nonexistent ones (Retraction Watch, March 31, 2020)



Expanding the Scope of Reproducibility Research Through Data Analysis Replications (ACM, April 2020)

Open Science and Replication Crisis (Gilad Feldman, April 2020)

Publication Bias: A Detailed Analysis of Experiments Published in ESEM (ACM, April 2020)

I am not biased. It is everyone else’s problem (SpinalCord, April 7, 2020)

Replicate Round Up (Replicate, April 8, 2020)

Agriculture researcher up to 15 retractions for fake peer review (Retraction Watch, April 9, 2020)

What’s That? The Replication Crisis is Good for Science? (Social Science Space, April 10, 2020)

A paper plagiarizes an article retracted for plagiarism and other sins — but it isn’t being retracted. (Retraction Watch, April 14, 2020)

An author realized a paper had plagiarized his thesis. It took the journal four years to retract it. (Retraction Watch, April 20, 2020)

Study Finds Pain Journals Not Subject To Publication Bias (PainMedicine News, April 20, 2020)

A year after a university asked two Elsevier journals to retract papers, they haven’t (Retraction Watch, April 22, 2020)

Study claiming broader spread of aerosolized coronavirus is retracted (Retraction Watch, April 22, 2020)

Too hot to handle: Authors retract Science paper on electromagnetics (Retraction Watch, April 23, 2020)

Journal retracts paper on gender dysphoria after 900 critics petition (Retraction Watch, April 30, 2020)


Litigious OSU cancer researcher earns his 10th retraction (Retraction Watch, May 1, 2020)

How A.I. may help solve science’s ‘reproducibility’ crisis (Fortune, May 4, 2020)

Doing the right thing: Researchers retract clinician burnout study after realizing their error (Retraction Watch, May 5, 2020)

The circle of life, publish or perish edition: Two journals retract more than 40 papers (Retraction Watch, May 6, 2020)

Materials scientist up to nine retractions (Retraction Watch, May 8, 2020)

Two retractions as yeast researcher risks losing her PhD (Retraction Watch, May 12, 2020)

Faith and flaw: The replication crisis is here (Vascular, May 15, 2020)

Materials science group loses four papers, has four more flagged (Retraction Watch, May 15, 2020)

A ‘very cautious’ process: Journal retracts reviews by anesthesiologist found to have committed fraud a decade ago (Retraction Watch, May 19, 2020)

Associate VP for research at Georgia State is up to 10 retractions (Retraction Watch, May 20, 2020)

Complex data workflows contribute to reproducibility crisis in science, Stanford scientists say (Stanford News, May 20, 2020)

The Reproducibility Crisis Might Be All in Your … Software (UConn Today, May 20, 2020)

Complex data workflows contribute to reproducibility crisis in science (, May 21, 2020)

JAMA journal retracts well-publicized paper linking doctor burnout to patient safety (Retraction Watch, May 21, 2020)

‘[A] disappointing situation’: Stem cell group retracts with ‘rectitude’ after error (Retraction Watch, May 27, 2020)

An attempt at a triple play seems likely to result in a retraction (Retraction Watch, May 28, 2020)


UC Davis researchers, faculty speak to the reasons behind, the impact of the replication crisis (The California Aggie, June 1, 2020)

Will recruitment ‘gamification’ drive diversity or replicate biases? (Financial Times, June 3, 2020)

Retracted studies may have damaged public trust in science, top researchers fear. (The Guardian, June 5, 2020)

Critiqued coronavirus simulation gets thumbs up from code-checking efforts. (Nature, June 8, 2020)

Elsevier journal to retract 2012 paper widely derided as racist (Retraction Watch, June 17, 2020)

Replications do not fail (Nature, January 17, 2020)

Authors of article on IQ, religiosity and crime retract it to do “a level of vetting we should have done before submitting” (Retraction Watch, June 18, 2020)

Figure “anomalies” prompt Harvard group to retract Nature paper (Retraction Watch, June 18, 2020)

A Wiley journal makes another article disappear (Retraction Watch, June 23, 2020)

Is Data Our New False Religion? (ZeroHedge, June 23, 2020)

Consumer research study is retracted for unexplained anomalies (Retraction Watch, June 24, 2020)

UCSD-collaborated Research Paper on COVID-19 Called for Retraction (News Break, June 24, 2020)

And then there were six: three more retractions for Japanese anesthesiologist (Retraction Watch, June 25, 2020)

“I want to apologize for my misconduct,” says anesthesiologist whose work is under investigation (Retraction Watch, June 25, 2020)

Drug delivery study with duplicated images is retracted (Retraction Watch, June 29, 2020)

Scientific self-correction: the Bayesian way (SpringerLink, June 29, 2020)

Lancet to change peer review process following COVID-19 retraction (Politico, June 30, 2020)


Computational chemistry faces a coding crisis (Chemistry World, July 2020)

The impact on quality of life from informing diagnosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis (BMC Cancer, July 2, 2020)

The Scientific Method: An Evolution of Thinking from Darwin to Dewey. (The New York Review of Books, July 2, 2020)

Science misconduct (For Better Science, July 7, 2020)

Failing replication studies in psychology often wrongfully blame contextual variation (Tilburg University, July 9, 2020)

Registered Reports offer recognition for rigour (Nature, July 9, 2020)

Opinion: Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias (PNAS, July 14, 2020)

Scientific versus public debates: A PNAS case study (PNAS, July 15, 2020)

The Protective Role of Social Support Sources and Types Against Depression in Caregivers: A Meta-Analysis (SpringerLink, July 18, 2020)

Weekend reads: Why science needs red teams; when clinical trial participants lie; kids cheating in science fairs? (Retraction Watch, July 18, 2020)

French hydroxychloroquine study has “major methodological shortcomings” and is “fully irresponsible,” says review, but is not being retracted (Retraction Watch, July 19, 2020)

A physics paper claimed the Koran had predicted the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Now it has an expression of concern. (Retraction Watch, July 20, 2020)

Calling exercise data “atypical, improbable, and to put it bluntly, pretty weird,” sleuths call for seven retractions (Retraction Watch, July 21, 2020)

“[H]ow gullible reviewers and editors…can be”: An excerpt from Science Fictions (Retraction Watch, July 21, 2020)

The best time to argue about what a replication means? Before you do it (Nature, July 21, 2020)

Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19: A Tale of Two Models (medRxiv, July 22, 2020)

Economists must remove racial biases from their profession, AFL-CIO chief economist says (CNBC, July 24, 2020)

The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data (The New York Times, July 27, 2020)


Scientific Misconduct and Literature Search (Research Gate, August 2020)

Journal editor breaks protocol to thank an anonymous whistleblower (Retraction Watch, August 5, 2020)

A retraction and a retraction request as Twitter users call out sexism, fat-shaming, and racism (Retraction Watch, August 6, 2020)

Cancer researcher hit with 10-year ban on federal US funding for nearly 100 faked images (Retraction Watch, August 7, 2020)

Op-Ed: We rely on science. Why is it letting us down when we need it most? (Los Angeles Times, August 14, 2020)

The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research (Harvard, August 14, 2020)

Did a journal retract your paper on homeopathy? Meet the journal that will publish your complaint (Retraction Watch, August 17, 2020)

Top chemistry journal retracts paper for faked data (Retraction Watch, August 18, 2020)

Research practices and research misconduct (Research Square, August 19, 2020)

Spider researcher uses legal threats, public records requests to prevent retractions (Retraction Watch, August 20, 2020)

‘Beggers’ can’t be choosers as another meta-analysis is retracted (Retraction Watch, August 21, 2020)

Weekend reads: Editors who publish in their own journals; a crackdown on paper mills; oncologist violates university policies in developing treatment (Retraction Watch, August 22, 2020)

Harmful research misconduct, is our research integrity framework adequate? (Pearls and Irritations, August 23, 2020)

Here’s why you shouldn’t try to republish a paper you had retracted for plagiarism (Retraction Watch, August 24, 2020)

COVID-19 research update: Data inconsistencies could slow the global response to the pandemic (Nature Index, August 25, 2020)

Duke engineering prof corrects seven papers for failures to disclose startup he co-founded (Retraction Watch, August 25, 2020)

Reporting Alleged Research Misconduct and Animal Protocol Violations (University of Southern Maine, August 26, 2020)

Springer Nature ‘continuing to investigate the concerns raised’ about paper linking obesity and lying (Retraction Watch, August 26, 2020)


Retraction to When lying is more than deceiving: A pragmatic study of lying based on the relevance-adaptation model (ScienceDirect, September 2020)

A Healthier Peer Review Process Would Improve Diversity (ACS Publications, September 1, 2020)

Disrupting Plagiarism: Building a Culture of Academic Honesty (TurnItIn, September 1, 2020)

Opinion: Science policy for scientists: A simple task for great effect (PNAS, September 1, 2020)

Going cold turkey: Infectious disease-poultry researcher up to 14 retractions (Retraction Watch, September 3, 2020)

Professor’s legal threats “were personal and not made on behalf of the University,” says University of California, Irvine (Retraction Watch, September 4, 2020)

Retractions: the good, the bad, and the ugly (Nature’s Index, September 8, 2020)

‘An isolated incident’: Should reviewers check references? (Retraction Watch, September 9, 2020)

Conversations on Science: Do Americans Trust Scientists? (PEW, September 11, 2020)

Vaccine Makers Keep Safety Details Quiet, Alarming Scientists (The New York Times, September 13, 2020)

Artificial intelligence, drug repurposing and peer review (Nature, September 14, 2020)

‘Women’s respect is a priority for us’: Journal finally retracts paper claiming women with endometriosis are more attractive (Retraction Watch, September 14, 2020)

America’s devastating divorce from science (CNN, September 15, 2020)

Springer Nature journal takes eight months to retract paper after US government misconduct finding (Retraction Watch, September 16, 2020)

Springer Nature Journal Takes 8 Months to Retract Paper After US Government Misconduct Finding (Medscape, September 16, 2020)

Anti-maskers don’t trust science: And it’s science’s fault (The Chronicle, September 17, 2020)

C.D.C. Testing Guidance Was Published Against Scientists’ Objections (The New York Times, September 17, 2020)

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness in Medicine and Cardiology: Next Steps for JAHA (Read, September 17, 2020)

Learning from a retraction (The Lancet, September 17, 2020)

COVID-19 data scandal prompts tweaks to elite journal’s review process (Science Magazine, September 18, 2020)

Journal retracts paper claiming smarter people are more likely to use a condom to avoid HIV (Retraction Watch, September 18, 2020)

COVID-19: a stress test for trust in science (The Lancet, September 19, 2020)

Exclusive: University of Arizona says former researcher committed misconduct by plagiarizing figure (Retraction Watch, September 21, 2020)

Years later, researcher at center of highly publicized case has another paper retracted (Retraction Watch, September 24, 2020)

23 becomes 22: Publisher retracts retraction, apologizes for the error (Retraction Watch, September 25, 2020)

Evaluating and Deploying Covid-19 Vaccines — The Importance of Transparency, Scientific Integrity, and Public Trust (The New England Journal of Medicine, September 25, 2020)

Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic (Read, September 25, 2020)

“No original data”: Stem cell researchers in Japan up to nine retractions (Retraction Watch, September 25, 2020)

Major heart journal retracts two papers from Oxford group for misconduct (Retraction Watch, September 28, 2020)

Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem Across Global Publics (Pew Research Center, September 29, 2020)

Author says ‘misguided efforts for the ideal western blot led to the withdrawal of these studies’ (Retraction Watch, September 30, 2020)

“This unfortunate situation”: Journal retracts bizarre paper about a black hole at the center of Earth (Retraction Watch,  September 30, 2020)


Opinion: Scientists Must Battle the Disinformation Pandemic (The Scientist, October 1, 2020)

How to Build Community, Connection, and Trust in Science (PEW, October 2, 2020)

Offline: Science and the breakdown of trust (The Lancet, October 3, 2020)

Almond, no joy: Plant geneticist in Iran up to at least six retractions (Retraction Watch, October 5, 2020)

How Trump damaged science — and why it could take decades to recover (Nature, October 5, 2020)

Trust in Science Soars Amid Global Pandemic (BioSpace, October 6, 2020)

Citizens in these countries have the most trust in scientists (World Economic Forum, October 7, 2020)

Elsevier journal disavows, but does not retract, paper on intelligent design (Retraction Watch, October 7, 2020)

30 years later, physics journal retracts paper that blamed feminism for many of society’s ills (Retraction Watch, October 8, 2020)

Science retracts paper as authors blame pandemic for image issues (Retraction Watch, October 8, 2020)

Heard about the study claiming men who carry guitar cases are more attractive? It’s been retracted. (Retraction Watch, October 9, 2020)

Another casualty of the coronavirus pandemic: Trust in government science (The Washington Post, October 11, 2020)

Journal retracts paper claiming that group of Indigenous Americans were Black Africans (Retraction Watch, October 12, 2020)

Researchers face disciplinary action as dozens of their studies fall under scrutiny (Retraction Watch, October 12, 2020)

Substandard COVID-19 research is cause for concern (Hospital Healthcare Europe, October 12, 2020)

In which a researcher named Das plagiarizes from another researcher named Das, one with 20 retractions (Retraction Watch, October 13, 2020)

She Hunts Viral Rumors About Real Viruses (The New York Times, October 13, 2020)

Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade. Have we learned anything? (Vox, October 14, 2020)

The bizarre anti-vaccine paper a Florida professor has been trying to have retracted to no avail (Retraction Watch, October 14, 2020)

Retraction notice to Mapping the Future of Myocardial Ischemia Testing With Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (JACC, October 16, 2020)

Trust in science is crucial (The Washington Post, October 18, 2020)


The Scientific Literature’s Own Pandemic (Science Magazine, November 2, 2020)

Paper Proposing COVID-19, Magnetism Link to Be Retracted (The Scientist, November 4, 2020)

Three Ways to Repair the Science/ Public Disconnect (Medium, November 8, 2020)

Understanding the current state of retractions & what you can do about it as an author to avoid citing them in papers (Medium, November 17, 2020)

Science retracts paper co-authored by high-profile scientist and former Dutch minister (Reaction Watch, November 19, 2020)

After scalding critiques of study on gender and mentorship, journal says it is reviewing the work (Science Magazine, November 20, 2020)

Largest ever research integrity survey flounders as universities refuse to cooperate (Science Magazine, November 25, 2020)

Authors retract Nature paper after realizing some data were “calculated wrongly” (Retraction Watch, November 27, 2020)

Johns Hopkins student newspaper deletes, then retracts, article on faculty member’s presentation about COVID-19 deaths (Retraction Watch, November 27, 2020)

The downfall (and possible salvation) of expertise (Chicago Booth Review, November 30, 2020)


Reproducibility and Risk Audit in Data Science Projects. (Medium, December 1, 2020)

To Understand How Science Denial Works, Look to History (Scientific American, December 1, 2020)

How Americans Came to Distrust Science (Boston Review, December 8, 2020)

Psychology’s replication crisis inspires ecologists to push for more reliable research (Science Magazine, December 9, 2020)

Study Finds Strong Links Between Trust and Social Media Use (NC State University, December 10, 2020)

How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing — in seven charts (Nature, December 17, 2020)

Nature Communications retracts much-criticized paper on mentorship (Retraction Watch, December 21, 2020)

Researchers retract controversial female mentorship paper (Science Magazine, December 21, 2020)

Cardiologist Makes a Federal Case Out of Retracted JAHA Paper (Medscape, December 22, 2020)

Undoing Scientific Wrongdoings: Is Journal Retraction Enough? (The Oxford Scientist, December 23, 2020)

Open Science: A Challenging Scientific Innovation (Psychology Today, December 24, 2020)

Psychology journal retracts two articles for being “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda” (Retraction Watch, December 29, 2020)

List of retracted COVID-19 papers grows past 70 (Retraction Watch, December 30, 2020)

“Psychological Science” in 2020 (Replicability-Index, December 31, 2020)