Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Why authors keep citing retracted studies; patients over papers; final ruling in Hwang case

with 4 comments

booksHere’s our first post of 2016. The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction from JAMA, and our list of most-cited retracted papers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Retractions Outside of The Scientific Literature

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support 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. Click here to review our Comments Policy.

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 2nd, 2016 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

Comments
  • Sylvain Bernès January 2, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Happy new year to all of you…
    I’m the very first commenter for 2016! So, let me begin with a riddle:

    Who wrote, 25 years or so ago:

    “There are more scientist alive now than ever before. There are many who prostitute themselves, selling their skills for money regardless of what they do. There are many academics whose primary concern is the output of papers, which few will read. There is a great deal of very uninspired work going on. There are those who treat their science as a solemn secret, which somehow they must keep exclusive and apart from the world at large. And yet…”

    (Yes, after “And yet…”, a much more positive viewpoint about science is given!).

    No reward for giving the correct reference of the paper: this is just for fun and also to show that even Google has a short memory.

    • Sylvain Bernès January 3, 2016 at 12:01 am

      Corrigendum: in the above comment, “the very first commenter” should read “the almost first commenter”.
      I acknowledge A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S (aka JA…) for pointing out this inaccuracy. As usual, conclusions remain valid.

  • A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S January 2, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    Sylvain Bernès “I’m the very first commenter for 2016!”

    http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/20/jeffrey-beall-scores-a-retraction/#comment-905524

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva January 3, 2016 at 5:32 am

    Some may be interested in my ideas:
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016) Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12109-015-9439-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.