- A series of papers in The Lancet looks at waste in research.
- “I think the history of science is a grand history of failures,” says science historian Michael Dietrich. “It keeps science moving.”
- A swift correction in the NEJM is “a victory for both peer review in new media and for the researchers,” reports Ivan’s MedPage Today colleague Crystal Phend.
- The consequences of plagiarism among nursing students aren’t merely academic, says Joy Jacobson.
- Dutch-speaking readers: Here’s an interview with Adam in de Volkskrant.
- Science won’t be ready for big changes in publishing until the way it funds grants changes, writes Steve Caplan in The Guardian.
- Matthew Herper, of Forbes, organized his own peer review of whiz kid Jack Andraka’s cancer diagnostic prototype. The verdict? Major revision.
- Also at Forbes, Henry Miller and Stanley Young write that most of what’s published in science today is junk.
- When it comes to drug company advertising, Canada’s medical journals lead the way, according to a new analysis.
- The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery will begin saying “who reviewed the article, from the Editor-in-Chief to the Deputy Editors to the outside reviewers and experts in methodology and biostatistics,” as part of an effort to make it clear what peer review means there. [see update at end of post]
- U.S. grad students: Confused about what your UK-trained senior faculty member means when giving feedback? Here’s a guide.
- Paul Brookes, founder of the now-shuttered science-fraud.org, gives an update on his attempts to have a PLOS Biology paper corrected.
- “…funding agencies, scientists, and journals are not including sufficient information when reporting on in vivo experiments,” according to a new report on animal research.
- “The signs were there as soon as the world learned that Shia LaBeouf had plagiarised his apology for plagiarising.”
Update, 4:15 p.m. Eastern, 1/12/14: As noted by commenter JATdS, the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery item was slightly inaccurate and has been changed to reflect what the journal meant by “who reviewed the article.” Journal publisher Kent Anderson tells us:
The JBJS peer-review statements only list the roles of the peer-reviewers involved. We have no plans to lose what we think are benefits to a confidential peer-review process.