Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: A modern-day witch hunt; overly honest limitations; doing the right thing

with 5 comments

The week at Retraction Watch featured the launch of an award for doing the right thing, and a hijacked journal getting its name back. 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

May 6th, 2017 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

Comments
  • Anonymous May 6, 2017 at 10:03 am

    Here’s an amusing correction for those who follow US politics.

    Correction: Republican bloodsuckers who sentenced poor to die didn’t drink Bud Light
    http://www.avclub.com/article/correction-republican-bloodsuckers-who-sentenced-p-254871

  • Jonathan Dresner May 6, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    Tuvel’s article should have been a revise&resubmit at best. The attacks on her critics are basically attempts to stifle anything like real debate about real people, as opposed to empty theorizing with white supremacist heteronormative presumptions.
    The Jewish paragraph alone should have gotten it sent back. Ahistorical, uninformed, dehumanizing junk theory.

  • Wyman May 7, 2017 at 1:10 am

    The editor and the president of the board of Hypatia have come out against the attacks on Tuvel (the first item), including siding against their board of associate editors.
    http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Journal-Article-Provoked-a/240021

  • Anonymous May 8, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    A good rule of thumb is that, if you are writing/publishing an academic thesis on marginalized groups, you might get some input from them. I have a number of friends who are black or transgender, and none of them is happy about this article. If they retract it, it should be with a clear statement that they were wrong to publish it in the first place without having it vetted by members of the marginalized groups being discussed.

    • J. J. Ramsey May 9, 2017 at 7:17 am

      First, since the peer review was double-blinded, it’s possible that they did get input from a marginalized group, and we just don’t know it.

      Second, while that is a good rule of thumb, since members of a marginalized group might be more likely to see certain flaws that wouldn’t be as obvious to those outside the group, ultimately the paper stands or falls on the quality of its arguments. Members of the marginalized groups in question still need to put up solid counterarguments, and shouldn’t be allowed to veto an academic paper simply because they are offended by its conclusions.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.