Weekend reads: Stem cell researchers falsifying data, neuroscience research forgets statistics tests
- A survey of stem cell scientists found that 4.7% have “falsified or augmented data that has ended up in a published paper.” Of note: New Scientist, which did the survey, changed its headline quickly in response to criticisms that its headline overstated the case.
- According to a new study, “more than half of 314 articles on neuroscience in elite journals during an 18-month period failed to take adequate measures to ensure that statistically significant study results were not, in fact, erroneous,” writes Gary Stix at Scientific American.
- A new Dutch “protocol for research evaluation focuses on the quality of the work of scientists,” while “‘productivity’ is not recognized as a separate criterion.”
- “…it’s hard to escape the sense that cheating is becoming easier, and preventing it is becoming harder,” writes a community college dean.
- In a new paper, “breast cancer researcher Mina Bissel and colleagues offer a cautionary tale about how difficult reproducibility can be,” according to a post at the Scholarly Kitchen. But last year, Bissel criticized the drive to replicate results, saying it “could could shelve promising research and unfairly damage the reputations of careful, meticulous scientists.”
- Here are more details on the call to retract a JAMA paper linking testosterone to heart disease.
- Ha! “New research suggests that researchers may have a sixth sense that allows them to correctly predict the upcoming publication of poorly conducted ESP research.”
- “…just as ‘just say no’ hasn’t eradicated drug use, it hasn’t eradicated plagiarism.”
- “Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture“
- What’s next for the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) following David Wright’s “fiery resignation?” asks Colin Macilwain.
- Jeffrey Beall, known for his list of possible predatory publishers, has launched a new list, Misleading Metrics. “Predatory publishers use these metrics to make their journals look legitimate,” writes Beall.
- A news anchor has retracted her claim that the White House gets questions in advance of daily press briefings.
- “…there is urgent need to build infrastructure in the publishing and archiving, and support to benefit scholars and publishers, especially regional journals and small publishers.”
- Impressive: The US Geological Survey retracted an earthquake.
- After the British Library told a visitor that tweeting a photo of its reading room was a copyright violation, it apologized.
- “How can journals respond to threats of libel litigation?”
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.