About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Retraction Watch on NPR; “hysteria” over replication; when a paywall might be a good thing

with 11 comments

booksIt’s been another busy week at Retraction Watch, mostly because of the unfolding Jens Förster story. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web:

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

May 3, 2014 at 9:00 am

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The last link (to PLOS Opens) is broken.

    mathbobby

    May 3, 2014 at 9:23 am

  2. That “Friends of Science” thing is hilarious. Their argument at the end boils down to a demand to retract a paper because it supposedly humiliates certain people, which they claim violates free speech. One would think that freedom of speech actually _includes_ being allowed to say things even if it humiliates others!

    Marco

    May 3, 2014 at 11:18 am

  3. Weenkend “silly” read #1
    http://i.imgur.com/0I8pOV2.png

    Jennifer Lopez

    May 4, 2014 at 7:40 pm

  4. The mole would have us all pat the fraudsters on the back and nominate them for more awards.

    By the mole’s reasoning, we should all be enjoying Piltdown man discussions in our archeological text books.

    Throw away your collected data, sayeth the mole. No need to keep scientific evidence laying around, just in case some pesky bitter anonymous “scientist” might care to actually do some science with it. Not to worry if your results are not reproducible . . . whyyyy they still might turn out to be really really good one day! I look forward to further discussion about this chaotic world of the mole, where irreproducible results yield such important advances.

    How on earth is science “self correcting” if not for serious practitioners pointing out shoddy presentations by cheaters? How is it “revenge” to point out shoddy science?

    And what does it say about our culture that the cheaters “have careers that allow them to mix with the society that the bitter ones found themselves excluded from”?

    Does the mole mingle with such society? Methinks the mole doth protest too much.

    Steven McKinney

    May 5, 2014 at 7:23 pm

  5. “RIKEN President Ryoji Noyori has asked all laboratory and research group leaders to check all of their previous publications for doctored images and plagiarism.” That’s like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. An independent committee needs to be established. MEXT should finance this and should then expand this to all state-financed universities. All members of the independent committee should be suitably qualified, should also include an international panel, and should remain anonymous, to avoid conflicts of interest.

    JATdS

    May 5, 2014 at 8:28 pm

  6. Mole:

    How ironic is it that someone castigating anonymous whistleblowers publishes under an anonymous pseudonym???

    Steven McKinney

    May 5, 2014 at 11:27 pm


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33,666 other followers

%d bloggers like this: