Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: A proposal to end NSF watchdog; Power pose criticism redux; A limit to lifetime word count?

with 7 comments

The week at Retraction Watch featured a journal that will pay authors royalties, a new estimate of how many papers are affected by contaminated cell lines, and threats by more than 20 researchers at Johns Hopkins to resign from a journal’s editorial board if a paper isn’t retracted. 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. If you have comments or feedback, you can reach us at

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 21st, 2017 at 9:33 am

Posted in weekend reads

  • Kenerod October 21, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    The bill Paul introduced also includes a provision that every federal proposal review panel include a “taxpayer advocate” so that “silly research” is not funded and to ensure that research that is funded is valuable.

    • Mary Kuhner October 21, 2017 at 9:35 pm

      We know from bitter experience what that will do: research that involves organisms with goofy sounding names (“nude mice”) or other easily mocked elements will become hard to fund. Colleagues who studied the effect of antidepressants on nerve cell function, in worms, struggled with this a lot.

      • jxj October 22, 2017 at 3:31 pm

        Not to mention research on controversial issues will also be dropped. So much for HIV prevention, especially in marginalized communities.

    • Looking Closer October 23, 2017 at 6:25 am

      So, those paying the bills should have no say in money matters? The scientific community needs to build trust with the taxpayers, not elitism.

      • Botheration October 24, 2017 at 5:38 am

        it is not elitism to defer to expertise.

    • reader October 23, 2017 at 9:24 am

      More transparency (i.e. making all grant applications public) might somewhat reduce the abuse of the system, including by those of high status who obtain grants from multiple programs with the same or very similar research proposals, then use the funds more broadly (i.e. to support not their graduate students), further increase their status at their institution, and as a result line up their own pockets and those of their institutions with 55-65% overhead charges on the grants.

  • Anonymous October 23, 2017 at 2:55 am

    Regarding the Iranian survey, we can read that “The majority of participants were native (104, 81%)”. Am I missing something here?

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.