Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Gay canvassing study saga continues; Elsevier policy sparks concern; a string of scandals

with 4 comments

booksAs might have been expected, continuing developments in the Michael LaCour gay canvassing study retraction have drowned out coverage of stories that ordinarily might capture a lot of attention, such as fake case reports making their way into CDC data. A sampling:

But just like last week, there was plenty happening 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.

Written by Ivan Oransky

May 30th, 2015 at 10:28 am

Posted in weekend reads

Comments
  • Joseph May 30, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    LaCour is no longer listed on UCLA’s Political Science website over placement candidates:
    http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/graduate/placement-candidates
    I do not know when that happened or what it means, but he was listed there as of March 31, 2015:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150331073336/http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/graduate/placement-candidates
    “I am equally prepared to teach substantive courses in American politics and public policy as well as quantitative methods and research design courses.” – LaCour. Some statements are interesting also in hindsight.

  • Grey Rabbit May 30, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    He is here as of 31/5/2015
    http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/graduate/past-placements
    “LaCour, Michael – Princeton University, Assistant Professor”

  • Mitch May 31, 2015 at 9:06 am

    I’m a bit confused by the Elsevier policy article, which states that they will do green OA with embargo periods of “6 months to 4 years.” In the US, NIH-funded work has to be deposited in PMC within a year. Otherwise, there is the threat of losing NIH eligibility. I haven’t read the policy; maybe it allows for this? Either way, it won’t affect availability of most research in the US, where we have essentially mandatory green OA. If I have to choose between pissing off Elsevier or the NIH, I’m going with Elsevier all the way.

  • Dave May 31, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    You’re article about the NIH doubling is spot on. As we have discussed over at Drugmonkey, any solution to the NIH problem has to involve a reduction in the number of mouths at the troth. The Great Cull, as it has become to be known, is well and truly in effect, and it is happening very fast:

    http://datahound.scientopia.org/2015/05/28/r01-equivalent-pis-1985-2014/

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.