About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Dope-addicted doctors running drug trials; jailed for copyright violation?

with 13 comments

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

August 2, 2014 at 11:05 am

Posted in weekend reads

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. That last link to the pdf on science blogging seems to be broken…

    Jeremy Fox

    August 2, 2014 at 11:46 am

  2. See http://www.erasmusmc.nl/1172194/2014/4761159 for the full text of the new report of Erasmus University on Don Poldermans (report is in Dutch).

    Klaas van Dijk

    August 2, 2014 at 11:50 am

    • We all know how the impact factor is calculated, using three simple letters, A, B and C. The efforts by Thomson Reuters are slow, minimal and do not address key issues, including more transparency, open access, clarification of “review” boards for journal selection, etc. I have hammered out my criticism in 2013, already [1]. Of course, seeking a response from Thomson Reuters, I got none.
      [1] http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)81-83o.pdf

      Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

      August 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm

      • Re: the impact factor. On July 31, 2014, Frontiers in Plant Science was too young to have an IF. On August 1, 2014, the IF score was 3.6*, a higher score than some plant science journals that have been in existence, publishing good science, for decades. The unfortunate thing is that many plant scientists will be claculating the amount of money they can make off publishing in this IF score journal vs the amount of money they will have to spend on the open access fee.
        * http://www.frontiersin.org/Plant_Science

        JATdS

        August 2, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    • I look forward to your Saturday roundups for good, but sometimes upsetting, reading.
      Thanks.

      Lew

      theunderscoretraveler

      August 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm

  3. [Perception of scientific fraud in the Spanish biomedical journals.]
    [Article in Spanish]
    Med Clin (Barc). 2014 Jul 26. pii: S0025-7753(14)00376-5. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2014.03.036. [Epub ahead of print]
    Martín-Arribas MC, Martínez-Hervás I, Rodríguez-Lozano I, Arias-Díaz J.

    This doesn’t seem to be available yet; it doesn’t come up anywhere on the journal’s website.

    Karen Shashok

    August 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm

  4. Is it somehow possible to limit the amount of posts by this particular reader of yours? It is getting beyond ridiculous and unfortunately the whole experience of your wonderful website is getting worse by each and every day.

    Mz

    August 2, 2014 at 8:16 pm

  5. the figure is generated ‘on the fly’
    Ha ha VERY FUNNY.

    herr doktor bimler

    August 2, 2014 at 8:36 pm

  6. The figures in the PeerJ preprint on p-values are very, very confusing (reporting numbers of papers as %, reporting numbers of papers of negative results, but percentages for positive etc.). I certainly hope it will get polished during the review process…

    Rafał

    August 4, 2014 at 4:00 am


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 35,064 other followers

%d bloggers like this: