Weekend reads: A call for retraction of therapy-breast cancer study; credit (and pay) for peer reviewers
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with Ivan speaking in Coventry, UK. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web:
- Should peer reviewers be paid? That’s the question Peer Review Watch is asking. And PeerJ partners with Publons to give reviewers credit.
- “[A]n article [in Cancer] claiming that psychotherapy delays recurrence and extends survival time for breast cancer patients” should be retracted, argues a researcher unrelated to the study.
- The Mole is back. This time, he doesn’t like the idea of “impartial groups that have the mandate to test important findings to determine if they can be replicated.”
- The NIH wants to ensure that preclinical research it funds considers females and males, according to Francis Collins and Janine Clayton.
- “We also propose that evidence rating schemes are formally modified so research with conflict of interest bias is explicitly downgraded in value.”
- There are a lot of inadequate and deceptive publishing practices out there, says Kent Anderson. So what can be done?
- Don’t judge a study by its cover — aka its abstract, says Hilda Bastian.
- “[E]ven honest researchers can sometimes find it difficult to adhere to authorship guidelines.”
- In Korea, “meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously, taking into account the possibility of duplicated studies.”
- The latest paper showing that resveratrol doesn’t do much good has science writer Virginia Hughes wondering if she should stop writing about health studies.
- “Pro tip: Don’t believe any claims about results not shown in a paper.”
- “It takes skepticism and skill to be a thoughtful health reporter,” according to a piece that quotes a presentation Ivan gave in Denver a the Association of Health Care Journalists’ annual conference.
- May’s Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Digest features news of a new module on corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.
- The divorce rate in Maine correlates with the U.S. per capita consumption of margarine. Those and other spurious correlations should remind everyone that correlation is not causation.
- Andrew Gelman writes a post about plagiarism and publishing that is like combining “brussels sprouts and liver instead of peanut butter and chocolate.”
- What responsibilities do public information officers (PIOs) have when pitching health studies?
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.