Weekend reads: Impact factor mania, male scientists citing themselves, insecure careers in academia
- Why does “impact factor mania” persist?
- Women cite their own work far less often than men do, according to a new study
- “Universities trade on our hopes, and on the fact that we have spent many years developing skills so specialized that few really want them, to offer increasingly insecure careers to young scholars.”
- University College, London, has blasted the Daily Mail for insinuating that two scientists were chosen to comment on new findings on the origin of the universe because of their race and gender. Perhaps Mail columnist Ephraim Hardcastle could publish his next essay in the Journal of Proteomics.
- “Will a few hubs such as ResearchGate or Pubpeer.com dominate post-publication peer review?” asks Richard van Noorden. And at GigaOm, Jim Woodgett wonders whether ResearchGate played much of a role in the RIKEN stem cell scandal.
- “…regarding correcting the literature, [editorial and publishing consultant Irene Hames] said editors’ awareness of the issue had been raised by websites such as Retraction Watch, as well as from being contacted by increasing numbers of whistleblowers, who can now carry out analyses of large numbers of papers as a result of the digitisation of journals.”
- The Wit and Wisdom of Psychology Abstracts: A brilliant sendup by Neuroskeptic
- Technophilic Magazine asks Ivan why we launched Retraction Watch. And Business Insider says Ivan is one of 40 science experts who “will completely revamp your social media feed.”
- The NSF “has seen its budget stagnate in recent years and is now facing attacks on its peer-review system and social-science division from conservative members of Congress,” writes Jessica Morrison in a profile of the agency’s incoming director.
- “Although the peer review research community is aware of the consequences of nonpublication of research, 39% of studies presented at [Peer Review Congresses] have not been fully published,” reports a paper in JAMA.
- “Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?”
- Here’s how academics learn to write badly
- The March issue of the COPE Digest features a number of items about retractions, fake papers, and fake conferences
- Why coming clean in retractions is important, by Virginia Gewin in an an issue of Nature that happened to include one
- “According to one study, which was presumably read by more than three people, half of all academic papers are read by no more than three people.”
- “Lawyers scuttle hopes of international court for fraudulent science:” A spoof from the European Heart Journal (see page 3 of PDF
- “As graft targets go, China’s R&D spending offers rich pickings.”
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.