Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Science press releases under fire; a new plagiarism excuse; win $1,000

with 6 comments

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of an entire issue of a journal and a renewable energy researcher agree to retract ten papers for recycling, and saw The Australian put us on its list of “30 Most Influential” in higher education for 2016. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

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 16th, 2016 at 10:06 am

Posted in weekend reads

  • Mimmo January 16, 2016 at 10:42 am
  • william January 16, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    In “Should journals knowingly publish fake studies? This one did. Our new column for STAT”, methinks you’re getting a little too obsessed with all the rats running around the papers to not enjoy a little humor with the SMACK group’s humorous study. Something so obviously NOT a rigorous “randomized, controlled and blinded study….” should not deserve your rigorous attention. I appreciate the work you guys do but some of this is very funny to a person like myself outside of the research arena. Human nature exposed at the higher end of the educational and intelligence curve is much appreciated by lesser humans.

    • Bobo January 16, 2016 at 6:38 pm

      Nope. It’s not right to have non-reviewed articles that include fake data in a scientific journal.

      The editor has compared it to the BMJ, but as the RW crew point out in their article, the BMJ studies use ~real~ data and are ~peer-reviewed~.

      The study with fake data should be retracted. That way, the “joke” is still available but the PDF will be marked with “retracted” to let readers know that the study is BS.

  • No laugh January 16, 2016 at 7:43 pm
  • Sylvain Bernès January 17, 2016 at 12:23 am

    Regarding the SMACK paper, the most shocking point is that this working group came to an overall conclusion which is blatantly wrong. Maternal kisses are obviously effective in alleviating boo-boos, as has long been demonstrated. See for example:
    (in French; a transcription of the lyrics is given, however, at the bottom of the page).

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.