Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: LaCour loses job offer; new Science data guidelines; Macchiarini grant funding frozen

with 5 comments

booksThis week at Retraction Watch saw us report on thousands of retractions from IEEE, which will have a serious effect on retraction record-keeping, a bizarre case of author impersonation, and a look at dentistry in outer space. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Written by Ivan Oransky

June 27th, 2015 at 9:58 am

  • JATdS June 27, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    Some may be interested (regrettably behind a paywall):
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) The importance of retractions and the need to correct the downstream literature. Journal of Scientific Exploration 29(2): 353-356.
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) Issues in science publishing: what’s hot and what’s not? KOME 3(1): 81-87. DOI: 10.17646/KOME.2015.16
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology (Public Science Framework) 1(2): 34-37.

    • blatnoi June 28, 2015 at 6:08 am

      JATdS, you thought about applying for a Kakenhi for this stuff? Japan is on a bit of a righteousness binge at the moment about misconduct.

    • NeutrinoSilk June 28, 2015 at 9:58 am

      I second blatnoi’s comments.

  • Paul June 28, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    Yes Institutions should release misconduct reports and their translated version quickly, but many institutions and universities don’t have a decent misconduct policy or a statutory committee for misconduct. Why is it not mandatory to specify a link to the istitutional policy and committee before being able to submit and publish any paper? How can we trust a paper coming from an institution without a clear policy about its internal misconduct?

  • scotus July 18, 2015 at 8:22 am

    More filings in the ongoing Kumar case. Can anyone make them available?

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.