There were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado:
- The News & Observer has a great two-part series about a Stefan Franzen, a chemistry professor at North Carolina State University who has been trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record, including a paper in Science. (Here’s a 2011 report on the case from Nature.) The reporter, Joseph Neff, puts the series into context here.
- Pacific Standard and Slate have corrected pieces on what happens when women take their husbands’ names because they both relied on retracted research by Diederik Stapel.
- “It’s not often that a journal will call attention to unreliable findings that it publishes…” But the editor of Human Reproduction did. And the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism may walk back a policy under which they “would no longer publish work that used immunoassays to measure steroid levels for primary outcomes,” following strong reader reaction.
- Following our coverage of a silent retraction in Cureus of a paper by a researcher who has threatened to sue us, the journal explains how it deals with retractions.
- The Guardian details the story of Nick Brown, the “British amateur who debunked the mathematics of happiness” and whose work we covered in September. Narrative.ly wrote about Brown in October.
- Benjamin Schwessinger, a colleague of Pamela Ronald’s, gives a behind-the-scenes look at what led to the lab’s two retractions.
- Julia Belluz sits in on a class by John Ioannidis, who has made a career out of showing how many studies don’t hold up. Ioannidis also features prominently in a New York Times essay on reproducibility by George Johnson.
- The University of Queensland offered an update on their investigation of
Levon Khachigian, who has had four papers retracted Bruce Murdoch, who has had one paper retracted.
- Here’s what MIT was teaching about the responsible conduct of research before fraudster Luk Van Parijs joined the faculty.
- “Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry?”
- At the Scholarly Kitchen, Kent Anderson says an analysis of advertising in medical journals — which we highlighted in a recent Weekend Reads — is “fatally flawed.”
- For some scientists, it’s unclear what’s new about a recently published paper on “quilt plots.”
- JAMA has posted an oral history of the evidence-based medicine movement.
- “I need to stay alert to one of the most corrupting forms of temptation, stopping myself from selecting evidence for no better reason than that it confirms my prior thinking.”
- Genome Web adds a lot of detail (sub req’d) to the story of a former NIH researcher who falsified images that we covered last month.
- What scientific ideas are ready for retirement? That’s the question Edge asked. Tabitha Powledge has a roundup.
- As part of its Supplement Shell Game series, USA Today finds that one of the main authors of a study supposedly showing the value of Craze is a doctor who has been disciplined in two states.
- Here’s a groaner of a comic about plagiarism, featuring DNA.