Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: When reproducibility is weaponized; Internet-based paraphrasing tools; go parasites!

with 2 comments

The week at Retraction Watch featured a predatory journal sting involving a fake disorder from Seinfeld, and a study with disturbing findings about how retracted papers are cited. 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

April 8th, 2017 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

Comments
  • imohacsi April 8, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    “Early career researchers are not taking advantage of opportunities “developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research”

    Early career researchers have one more important thing: WORK
    It’s generally tenured professors or journalists with a lot of time who are spreading these ideas when they have nothing else to do, while their PhD students are working 16h/day.

  • VT April 9, 2017 at 5:34 am

    I second that. Said opportunities are non-existent, especially job security for PhD students and postdoc are so uncertain. All of our time spent worrying about what next for out future career.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.