This week at Retraction Watch featured a big new study of retractions, another that looked at scientist productivity over time, and a new statement on how to use p values properly. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- A freelance reporter for Science, Michael Balter, has been fired shortly after publishing a story on sexual harassment allegations. A statement from Science publisher AAAS here.
- This could go down in history as one of the most highly cited “scientific papers” to ever be retracted. (McSweeney’s)
- “Somebody explain to me again why we have journals,” asks Steve Shea.
- “An influential psychological theory, borne out in hundreds of experiments, may have just been debunked,” writes Daniel Engber at Slate. “How can so many scientists have been so wrong?“
- In BBC Radio 4’s “Saving Science from the Scientists,” Alok Jha wonders “whether science is as rigorous as it should be.
- Why did the timeline for this potential Alzheimer’s drug keep shifting? Our latest for STAT.
- “She wanted to do her research,” writes Hope Jahren in The New York Times. “He wanted to talk ‘feelings.’”
- “Every time Emily Temple-Wood receives an inappropriate email, she writes a Wikipedia entry about a woman scientist,” writes Jef Akst at The Scientist.
- Gender bias in academia, a bibliography, from Danica Savonick and Cathy N. Davidson.
- What should be done when there are disagreements over whether a paper has problems? asks Jonathan Eisen.
- Advocates are increasingly using predatory journals to make their cases, says Jeffrey Beall.
- The fight over the PACE trial of chronic fatigue syndrome has some scientists balking at releasing their data, reports Amy Dockser Marcus in the Wall Street Journal. (sub req’d) Meanwhile, PLOS ONE has determined that some of the data should be released. Background available here.
- In “The Case of the Missing Data,” F. Perry Wilson explains that “how it’s accounted for can turn elections, and medical research studies.” (MedPage Today)
- “Academics should be encouraged to openly publish all their research funding proposals, successful or otherwise,” says Ross Mounce. (Times Higher Education)
- In Berkeley? Come see our Ivan Oransky speak Tuesday.
- The controversial paper mentioning “the Creator” has put the fear of God into PLOS, writes Paul Basken at The Chronicle of Higher Education.
- Science writer Carl Zimmer has “gotten a bit leery about just how far [scientists’s] enthusiasm for communication is getting.” (Cell)
- “Why it pays off to pay us well: The impact of basic research on economic growth and welfare.” (Research Policy, sub req’d)
- “There is a clear positive relationship between being a top journal in impact factor ranking…and having an open [data] policy.” (Scientometrics, sub req’d)
- “Statisticians such as myself should recognize that the point of criticizing a study is, in general, to shed light on statistical errors, maybe with the hope of reforming future statistical education,” says Andrew Gelman.
- Helene Hill, who has spent about 15 years “trying to expose what she believes to be a case of scientific misconduct,” has published her evidence, along with Joel Pitt, on Science Open. The work is not yet peer-reviewed.
- A new button is designed to encourage data sharing. (Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Nature).
- No, the U.S. government did not spend more than $400,000 on a study of gender and glaciers, reports Andy Cush at Gawker.
- Two students at Lehigh were banned from labs following incidents involving hamsters, Rebecca Wilkin reports at The Brown and White.
- How can the journal Social Psychology increase replicability? Outgoing editor Christian Unkelbach weighs in. (sub req’d)
- Emerson Murphy-Hill, the author of a new study of gender bias in open-source software, describes what it was like to get so much media attention. (PeerJ)
Retractions Outside of the Scientific Literature
- How much would you pay to retract a message? (TechCrunch)
- Introducing…the Retraction Prevention System!
- “Issue an embarrassing retraction” as a crossword clue.
Update, 2 p.m. Eastern, 3/12/16: Clarified Michael Balter’s status as a freelance reporter in first item.
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.