This week at Retraction Watch was dominated by the Science same-sex marriage study, after we broke the news Wednesday morning that one of its authors had requested its retraction. (And crashed our servers in the process.) So the first section of this Weekend Reads will focus on pieces following up on that story:
- The New Republic’s Naomi Shavin told the story of how we broke the story, and how the study fell apart.
- Jesse Singal of New York Magazine interviewed Donald Green, the co-author who asked for the retraction.
- Ivan spoke to NPR’s On The Media about the study, and what the story says about peer review.
- “”The incentives to publish today are corrupting the scientific literature and the media that covers it.” We wrote a New York Times op-ed for today’s paper, “What’s Behind Big Science Frauds?“
But there was plenty more happening this week:
- Publisher Frontiers has fired 31 editors amid a debate over editorial independence, Martin Enserink reports.
- How the biggest fabricator in science history was caught: We tell the story of Yoshitaka Fujii in Nautilus.
- Neuroskeptic has a helpful guide to p-hacking.
- “Lies Out Of The Lab:” Die Welt looks at scientific fraud (in German).
- “With 1014 authors, an article by Leung et al. in the May issue of G3 has the largest author list of any paper published in the journal,” notes the Genetics Society of America.
- Does that study showing Academia.edu can boost citations hold any water? asks Phil Davis.
- The mechanism behind the ability of young blood to slow down aging in mice is being questioned. The senior scientist on the work, Amy Wagers, had to retract high-profile papers five years ago when a post-doc manipulated images.
- “The research article as we know it has been around, in one form or another, for over 300 years,” says Daniel Shanahan. “And for 300 years, it has scarcely changed.”
- Reviewers (and Editors) Behaving Badly: Ivan’s presentation at the Council of Science Editors meeting this week.
- The mythical stories we tell about scientific discoveries are destructive, argues Leonard Mlodinow.
- A page proof-stage update to a PNAS paper forced an editor’s note in The New York Times.
- UK universities are slow to publish reports of misconduct investigations, Nature’s Lizzie Gibney reports.
- A piece by Jeffrey Beall about what the open access movement doesn’t want you to know has set off criticism.
- The Science paper wasn’t the only same-sex marriage study called into question this week. A look at the infamous Regnerous study raised a lot of concerns.
- The views of many conservative U.S. politicians on science funding, in just several hundred words.
- “One of the trickiest times for any research team is when you have to work out what you can do with a reduced amount of money.”
- A study is questioning the promise of bone marrow transplants for Rett syndrome, Jessica Wright reports.
- Russian scientists have been cut off from Springer journals after a funder didn’t pay the bill, Nature reports.
- “In a previous correction on this post, we corrected something that was actually correct. So we have corrected that correction.” Awesome.
- “47% of authors agree or strongly agree that they feel pressured to publish more articles rather than fewer, higher-quality articles.” A report from a publishing conference organized by Elsevier.
- Disclosure vs. confidentiality: Debra Parrish reviews the Anversa lawsuit against Harvard.
- The Voinnet case prompts a look at the Swiss system for dealing with fraud allegations.
- ORCID, the scientist registry, has a plan to recognize peer review efforts.
- What effect will the removal of prostate cancer data from a national U.S. database have on research?
- The U.S. Department of Defense is taking a look at whether scientists applying for its grants face gender bias.
- In a survey of nearly 500 studies of ecology, evolution, and behavior, “while 248 articles included experiments that could have been influenced by observer bias, only 13.3% of these articles indicated that experiments were blinded.
- If only gunshots could be retracted.
There was so much going on elsewhere, in fact, that we’ll have a second batch of Weekend Reads posted on Monday, which is a national holiday here in the U.S. (and elsewhere).
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.