Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Publishing hypocrisy; false truths; scientists go rogue

with 8 comments

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured a heartfelt essay by John Ioannidis on what he called the hijacking of evidence-based medicine, as well as the story of a peer reviewer who stole text for his own paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Retractions Outside of the Scientific Literature

Written by Ivan Oransky

March 19th, 2016 at 9:49 am

Posted in weekend reads

  • J Calvert N (UK) March 19, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Re: “What does psychology’s reproducibility ‘crisis mean for the future of science?’ asks Brian Resnick in Vox.” Very little, in my opinion – as I do not believe that psychology really qualifies as a true science. I see it as a (wonderful) humanities subject that sometimes uses science-like methods. (The same goes for sociology and geography.)

  • Narad March 19, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Michelle Meyer raises one possibility.

    It’s thoroughly unclear to me what this tweet adds to anything. The issue is Rosenbaum’s assertion that Reed had stage IV disease before the morcellation.

    • Narad March 19, 2016 at 9:25 pm

      I see that Meyer has taken to Forbes to contend (at somewhat tedious length, IMO) that “Reed’s LMS was stage IV” is “grammatically ambiguous.”

  • Narad March 19, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    How have scholarly journals converted to open access? A new report takes a look.

    I find no small irony in the Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication’s producing an effectively unreadable document. Multiple vertical scroll bars have been a hallmark of incompetent design for many years, and there’s apparently no way to view it in its entirety. Moreover, it’s necessary to have a second window open to follow along with the references.

  • Tony Mitchell March 19, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    Is the linke in this line, “When it comes to data, a new set of proposed guidelines advocates “being ‘intelligently open’, rather than ‘religiously open.’”” correct? I have looked at the manuscript that is linked to but cannot find the words “intelligently” or “religiously” in it? I am not sure the link is correct.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.