Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: A course on calling bullshit?; What closure of Beall’s list means; More preprint debate

with 6 comments

The week at Retraction Watch featured the harrowing story of a would-be whistleblower subjected to a forced mental exam (part of our partnership with the news team at Science), and Jeffrey Beall’s site about predatory publishers going dark. 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, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 21st, 2017 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

  • Ed Goodwin January 21, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    One should review most published studies as bullshit until proven otherwise—sorry.

    • MannyHM January 22, 2017 at 7:59 am

      As long as bullshit is purveyed as fertilizer or fuel it’s of real value. If it’s spray painted with gold and sold as something else it’s fraud. LOL

      • Realist Writer January 22, 2017 at 5:01 pm

        I actually agree. I’ve seen very terrible studies that nevertheless made interesting points and provided fuel for thought. These papers are useful, so long as they don’t try to pretend to be more than they are.

  • Warrick January 21, 2017 at 4:15 pm

    A preprint version as final can easily be signaled to readers by laying it out in a final page layout style, rather than double space line numbered style. I note Coop has done just this
    I’ve used double column style to achieve a similar look to many journals. Again, aiming to signal this is a final version not intended for publication elsewhere.

  • reader January 22, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Better yet, support *all* STEM students in their journey into bi-literate academic writers, *including* native speakers of English!

    Requiring some more humanities study for STEM careers could get rid of some more of the anti-humanities, anti-people-skills stereotyping that helps steer so much bad behavior into STEM labs and classes in the English-speaking world.

  • Reader January 23, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    Latest version of the Beall’s List is backed up at .

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.


Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

Email address