Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: A science BS detector; scholarly publishing’s 1%; a tenured professor is fired

with 3 comments

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a 35-year-old paper written by a cat, and the retraction of a study about a controversial gene editing technique. 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

August 5th, 2017 at 10:20 am

Posted in weekend reads

Comments
  • Mary Kuhner August 5, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    My lab head is the author of one of the top 100 most cited papers in history. The paper introduced a basic statistical method in phylogenetics, and everyone who uses that method therefore cites it–a lot of cites. But it is not his best or most influential paper; it’s just something that a great many people routinely need to cite. (Probably the vast majority of those who cite it haven’t read it.) A large proportion of the top 100 are papers of this kind.

    Or in other words, I think this is just as bad a metric as influence factor, if not worse.

  • Nereo Preto August 6, 2017 at 4:30 am

    About the system of incentives in Indonesia (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/carrots-and-sticks-are-not-enough): did I understand it right that the incentives to publish in scopus-indexed journals in Indonesia led to less citations? The article in Times Higher Education is about something else, but it seems to me that this fall in citations would be the real impressive point…

  • anon August 6, 2017 at 8:46 am

    Kornfeld and Titus are correct, and it takes little insight to see it–it’s been said in the RW forum before: make the punishment match the offense. If one uses fraudulent means to obtain public monies, they should/must face criminal jeopardy! Civil penalties may also be appropriate when misconduct has been perpetrated.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.