Another busy week here at Retraction Watch, with many in the scientific world glued to their browsers for more information on the latest stem cell controversy. Hear Ivan on the BBC discussing what that story means for post-publication peer review. Elsewhere around the web:
- Is research misconduct the equivalent of doping? (in Swedish)
- “If one scholar plagiarizes another, but everybody keeps quiet, did it really happen?”
- “I have great difficulty understanding why anyone would even try to publish plagiarized content,” writes journal editor Udo Schuklenk.
- In I, Science, Dalmeet Singh Chawla weighs in on the rise in retractions.
- “Perhaps the greatest risk of this story is a loss of credibility for the scientists and environmental groups who tell it,” Yale postdoc Arthur Middleton writes of the story of wolves in Yellowstone.
- “Science is now able to self-correct instantly,” says PubPeer. “Post-publication peer review is here to stay.”
- What role do lawyers play “in preventing horror stories like the Tuskegee study and thalidomide tragedy?” (free registration required)
- How researchers can remove they hype from hypertension. (subscription required)
- There has been a “limited retraction” of some claims made in a 2012 BBC interview of BritainsDNA managing director Alistair Moffat, who is also rector of the University of St. Andrews. More on the story here.
- Failure to report failure to replicate: A look by Zen Faulkes.
- How similar are results reported in journals and in ClinicalTrials.gov?
- How can journals improve the press releases they send out?
- Sloppy researchers beware. A new institute headed by John Ioannidis has you in its sights.
- “In sum, we need to stop talking about the future of science journalism,” writes Dominique Brossard.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.