Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Sabotage in the lab; a lab animal database disappears; PACE authors push back

with 11 comments

The week at Retraction Watch featured the launch of the greatest journal ever, and a story about the backlash against widely covered research on why men eat more. 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

February 4th, 2017 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

  • AB February 4, 2017 at 11:14 am

    Regarding the deletion of accounts, I think the same could apply to ResearchGate accounts as this is also a monetized and private company that collect money on the back of its members.

    • Bort February 4, 2017 at 5:14 pm

      Who cares. They provide a service. They give you something; you give them something in return.

      • witters February 6, 2017 at 12:21 am

        Yeah, its monetised, who cares? Nice summary of the problem we alll face and you just don’t see.

  • Bobby Goodson February 4, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Regarding Khaled Moustafa’s assertion that formatting is onerous to authors prior to submission, the editors use the media format to guide their own review. An editor that has to wade through whatever format the author has chosen to submit is less likely to consider the merits of the submission than another submission that requires less effort to shoehorn into the journal’s guidelines.

  • MGAP February 4, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    Actually, playing a bit with the different LaTeX styles is so relaxing. I love the moment when the manuscript is finally ready: references have been double checked, pics and captions as well, all the coauthors read it for the last time. You have already agreed upon the journal you are submitting to, but just to postpone the last and final moment, you check how the manuscript would have looked like with another outfit…

    • Nils February 4, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      Using BibTeX also saves quite some time on double-checking references.

    • TL February 6, 2017 at 4:23 am

      Then you find out the journal you are trying to submit to demands submissions in Word, formatted to their specific niche style of course, and throw your computer out the window.

      • Nils February 6, 2017 at 9:02 am

        Just don’t submit to such journals: the more people boycott such unadapted relics, the faster they will become extinct 😉

        • TL February 6, 2017 at 12:35 pm

          Doing so limits severely the number of medical journals one is willing to submit to and will lead to some rather unhappy co-authors.

  • MannyHM February 4, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    That sabotage in the lab should be a felony, it’s beyond misdemeanor. It’s an assault on the professional life of Teodora Ross, not merely a waste and squander of valuable resources.
    Every lab should watch out for this possibility.

  • Paul Brookes February 6, 2017 at 9:09 am

    Regarding the article by Thaler & Karas (“Poor supervision is not available as the basis for a research misconduct finding”), I fundamentally disagree.

    The authors state the following… “unless the accused scientist himself/herself, actually engaged in fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, there can be no finding of research misconduct”.

    This ignores the role of a supervisor or PI in KNOWINGLY permitting an underling (trainee) to engage in such practices. Holding a federal grant, and allowing people in your lab to commit misconduct, does not absolve one of culpability. If you create an environment conducive to misconduct, you’re just as much to blame as the minions who partake of it.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.