Weekend reads: “Banished” data used in a paper; cancer group’s database draws ethical scrutiny; company employees banned as peer reviewers

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 a retraction demand from CrossFit; a “case of good science” in a Nature retraction; and another Forensics Friday, in which you can test your sleuthing skills. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, 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.

6 thoughts on “Weekend reads: “Banished” data used in a paper; cancer group’s database draws ethical scrutiny; company employees banned as peer reviewers”

  1. Invest in Open Infrastructure sounds like a rent seeking lobby group. It will collect funds to manage itself but it won’t distribute money to open source infrastructure projects. It can’t back key projects because it has competing players on board – eg a funder could say that they’re thinking of supporting a journal manager but IOI can’t say anything but ‘good idea!’ because both PKP and CoKo are supporters. I have read their website top to bottom and I still have no idea what they will achieve or how they will get there.

    Another well intentioned but useless open access initiative.

    1. Invest in Open Infrastructure may well be flawed. But why would it be useless? I’m under the impression that it is a bit too idealistic. But if it brings good ideas to the table, it may well be a useful initiative even if it doesn’t achieve much on its own.

      1. PKP – Public Knowledge Project. CoKo – Collaborative Knowledge Foundation. They both make open source journal managers.

        I think it will be useless because they aren’t proposing to do anything. Their website is all buzzwords and they don’t appear to have any plans other than to exist. Yes, we need more investment in open access infrastructure. But how can they promote investment when they bring no money to the table and have not expressed any ideas about what funders should do?

        When I heard about it I was excited -this is something we need. But since I can’t figure out what they’re going to do, I can’t help but think they’ll do nothing. For example, part of their framework is to “Develop and maintain a methodology for matching what is needed to what is available, prioritizing collaborative solutions.”
        So they won’t actually help identify what needs to be done. They will just maintain a methodology for doing so. Do we really need a new organisation to tell us to ask people what’s wrong and what they need to fix it?

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.