Weekend reads: Ousted at MD Anderson; an “under-recognized variety of plagiarism;” a data thug rolls again

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 revelations about a Harvard lab being investigated by federal officials; a researcher who blamed a dead colleague for plagiarism; and the retraction of a paper on mindfulness. 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.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Ousted at MD Anderson; an “under-recognized variety of plagiarism;” a data thug rolls again”

  1. It would have been nice if that Journal of Informetrics article about the effect of open access on research quality was an empirical study instead of a game theory analysis.

    It’s 2019. We recently had an unenforceable $50 million US court order against OMICS and predatory publishers are a problem so big Cabell’s is making money off keeping a list of them. We’ve had years of people pointing out the perils of pay-to-publish and editorial boards resigning over pressure to accept mediocre papers. Is it too much to ask that if you’re going to point out the obvious that you should be doing it with a bit of data?

  2. Senator Chuck Grassley wants to know “how foreign entities may influence taxpayer-funded research”.
    As a “foreign entity” publishing science, I can give this one to the senator for free: There are a number of us who will do all we can to influence research in our fields, anywhere and funded by anybody.

  3. The Stanford Daily article on the Stanford Medicine Dean’s Lecture event featuring GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley was captured in the WayBack machine:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20190417175253/https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/04/17/glaxosmithkline-ceo-talks-pharmaceutical-industry-and-leadership/

    Unclear to me as yet why that report needed retracting. What is the Dean and/or GSK trying to hide??

    The web page for the Dean’s Lecture Series states:

    “The Dean’s Lecture Series is free and open to the Stanford community.”

    That doesn’t appear to be “off the record”. Since when is “free and open to the community” off the record??

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.