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 retraction of a paper on red wine, tea, and cancer; a look at why researchers make up co-authors’ names, and how PLOS ONE has become a “major retraction engine.” Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “Researchers at the Agriculture Department laughed in disbelief last summer when they received a memo about a new requirement: Their finalized, peer-reviewed scientific publications must be labeled ‘preliminary.'” (Ben Guarino. Washington Post)
- “[We] will look back on the past 60 years…and marvel at how much time and money has been wasted on flawed research.” (Dorothy Bishop, Nature)
- A UCSD researcher is on leave after an “investigation exposed how the doctor put medical research subjects in harm’s way for years.” (Brad Racino, Jill Castellano, inewsource)
- “I don’t think it is great to cover single studies every week.” Our Ivan Oransky talks to the ORION Open Science podcast. (The episode was recorded last year.)
- “Is a coveted U.S. lab job worth being separated from his family?” (Eric Boodman, STAT)
- “Brazilian researcher Olavo Amaral is going a step further and launching a reproducibility initiative that, for the first time, aims to assess performance at the level of his whole country…” (The Naked Scientists)
- “U.S. universities reassess collaborations with foreign scientists in wake of NIH letters,” Jeffrey Mervis reports. (Science)
- “A prominent pediatrician and medical researcher in the Philippines has been indicted over the failed—and many say premature—introduction of Dengvaxia, a vaccine against dengue that was yanked from the Philippine market in 2017 because of safety issues.” (Fatima Arkin, Science)
- “Women at the Salk Institute say they faced a culture of marginalization and hostility,” reports Mallory Pickett. “The numbers from other elite scientific institutions suggest they’re not alone.” (New York Times Magazine)
- “Should we introduce a dislike button for academic articles?” ask Agnieszka Geras, Grzegorz Siudem and Marek Gagolewski. (sub req’d)
- How should authorship definitions change given growing international collaborations in the natural sciences? (Science and Engineering Ethics)
- “Spurious findings in pathology contribute inefﬁciency to the scientiﬁc literature and detrimentally inﬂuence patient care.” (Laboratory Investigation)
- Another study of the Mediterranean diet has been retracted and replaced, this one from The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
- In a time of “alternative truths,” “Do Medical Journals Have a Role in Addressing Medical Information?” ask Armstrong and Naylor in JAMA.
- “Libraries and funding agencies are finally flexing their muscles against journal paywalls. Authors should follow suit.” (Marcus Banks, Undark)
- “My name shouldn’t be on this list as I haven’t been part of this journal for many years and will have my name removed.” The University of Toronto tells Peter Heimlich it will correct the record about its professors and OMICS.
- Could “preprint servers as self-organising peer review platforms could be the future of scholarly publication?” Wang LingFeng, of Guilin University, says they’re worth considering. (LSE Impact Blog)
- Kolon Life Science, a biotech company in South Korea, is hoping that its license to sell its drug Invossa-K won’t be pulled now that it announced that the drug contained a different cell line than they thought it contained. (Lee Hye-seon, Korea Biomedical Review)
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 email@example.com.