Archive for the ‘studies about retractions’ Category
From time to time, we find online college syllabi among those sites referring us traffic, and some professors have told us that they use Retraction Watch in their classes. We’re pleased and humbled by that.
In a new paper published in the Journal of College Science Teaching, three professors at Clayton State University in Morrow, Georgia, discuss why retractions are good case studies for teaching ethics and examining the scientific process in class. Stephen Burnett, Richard H. Singiser, and Caroline Clower write: Read the rest of this entry »
About three years ago, we brought Retraction Watch readers news of our new favorite journal, the Journal of Universal Rejection. In a post titled “No retractions necessary” that featured an interview with the editor, Caleb Emmons, we quoted the journal:
The founding principle of the Journal of Universal Rejection (JofUR) is rejection. Universal rejection. That is to say, all submissions, regardless of quality, will be rejected.
So we’re thrilled to learn that the JofUR has now moved into the lucrative conference market, with their Conference of Universal Rejection scheduled for August of this year: Read the rest of this entry »
Weekend reads: Seralini GMO-rat study retraction aftershocks; NEJM investigates conflicts of interest
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a sampling of items about scientific publishing, research misconduct, and related issues from around the web:
Read the rest of this entry »
Weekend reads: One researcher resents “cyberbullying” while another wishes peer reviewers would spank him
- “The part of our paper that I [Conley] regret is our crazy biological interpretation. I don’t know what I was thinking or why reviewers didn’t spank me on that…” A wonderfully honest quote from a researcher who studies political attitudes. Read the rest of this entry »
Here at Retraction Watch, we judge retraction notices every day. We even have a category called “unhelpful retraction notices.”
But we haven’t systematically analyzed those notices, so lucky for us, a group of academics at Vanderbilt decided to. In a new paper published in a special issue of Publications – an issue whose editor, Grant Steen, put out a call for papers for here on Retraction Watch — Emma Bilbrey, Natalie O’Dell, and Jonathan Creamer explain: Read the rest of this entry »
Weekend reads: Trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record; drug company funding and research
There were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado: Read the rest of this entry »
The first full week of 2014 featured a slew of stories and commentary about scientific publishing and related issues. Here’s a sampling: Read the rest of this entry »