Weekend reads: Taylor Swift teaches botany; NEJM retracts key study in Amgen drug; hidden prompts at conference ‘snare AI peer reviews’
If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed. The week at Retraction Watch featured: In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 65,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions … Continue reading Weekend reads: Taylor Swift teaches botany; NEJM retracts key study in Amgen drug; hidden prompts at conference ‘snare AI peer reviews’
Record details
Published: 4 July 2026
Source: Retraction Watch
Category: News
Topics: Healthcare
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Exclusive: A couple paid more than $800,000 for a gene-editing therapy for their daughter. She died, and it wasn’t made public
Retraction Watch · 23 July 2026
Springer Nature un-retracts Planck papers, citing “human error”
Retraction Watch · 7 July 2026
Journal, university investigations launched into gene-editing death following Science-Retraction Watch reporting
Retraction Watch · 30 July 2026
Weekend reads: University and journal investigating gene-editing death; ADA ‘must take accountability’; psychedelic therapy paper faces retraction
Retraction Watch · 1 August 2026
Why Americans are living longer again
Vox Future Perfect · 4 July 2026
“He Didn’t Need to Die.” How an Immigration Detention Center Repeatedly Failed to Address a Mental Health Crisis.
ProPublica (Machine Bias) · 3 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (4 July 2026), “Weekend reads: Taylor Swift teaches botany; NEJM retracts key study in Amgen drug; hidden prompts at conference ‘snare AI peer reviews’,” evidence record 2636, https://ethics.ai/record/2636 (originally published by Retraction Watch).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.