Weekend reads: Our database of 18,000-plus retractions is launched; inside a trial gone wrong; scholarly publishers bow to censorship

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured the official launch of our database of more than 18,000 retractions, along with a six-page package in Science about some preliminary findings. Have a look. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

5 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Our database of 18,000-plus retractions is launched; inside a trial gone wrong; scholarly publishers bow to censorship”

  1. “Should Scholars Avoid Citing the Work of Awful People?”

    If one writes on this topic, and one happens to be an awful person oneself, is a COI statement required? Asking for a friend.

  2. From the Pro Publica story about the UCI psychiatrist doing a study that “violated research rules, failed to alert parents of risks and falsified data to cover up misconduct” – who lost her academic job as a result and then opened a private clinic – shouldn’t this level of misconduct when treating human subjects (children!) have a bearing on licensure?

  3. I’m not familiar with listing authors chronologically. Does that mean you list them by age? Is it oldest first or youngest first?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.