Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Does publishing take too long?; Zika data complaints; a Valentine’s Day special

with 6 comments

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured two high-profile resignations linked to the Paolo Macchiarini case, as well as a Q&A with a long-frustrated — and now vindicated — whistleblower. 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, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy.

Written by Ivan Oransky

February 13th, 2016 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

  • JP February 13, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Sci-Hub isn’t available “in a shadowy corner of the Internet”, but also via

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva February 13, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Sci-Hub resolves all the (sub req’d) indicated by RW on all its Weekend Reads, and gives a new perspective to PPPR.

  • Warrick February 13, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    “posted genomes of the virus online did not receive proper credit in a publication,”
    I’ve had criticism from some for analysing GenBank data and finding new insights not published previously. Many of those GenBank sequences were not otherwise, and likely will never be, “published” by the depositors. This is a very valuable contribution they make. Surely the reference to the GenBank number itself constitutes a citation?

  • herr doktor bimler February 13, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    When a group of psychology researchers looked at a study of social priming, they found “a number of strange oddities.” (Basic and Applied Social Psychology)

    Neuroskeptic has summarised the critique from BASP, and added further analyses:

  • Sylvain Bernès February 13, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    Plagiarism Outside of the Scientific Literature:

    The plagiarist eventually said: “there is something I cannot do, which is write”.

  • BB February 14, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    According to the report in Atlantic: “Like its seedy dark-web neighbors, the Sci-Hub site is accessible only through Tor, a network of computers that passes web requests through a randomized series of servers in order to preserve visitors’ anonymity.”

    Doing a bit more research before writing down this massive pile of bovine excrement would have been beneficial, as one does not have to go to the “dark web” to access the site. Besides, Sci-Hub is the single best thing to happen in academic publishing since well – the printing press.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.