Weekend reads: Retraction Watch on NPR; “hysteria” over replication; when a paywall might be a good thing

booksIt’s been another busy week at Retraction Watch, mostly because of the unfolding Jens Förster story. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web:

11 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Retraction Watch on NPR; “hysteria” over replication; when a paywall might be a good thing”

  1. That “Friends of Science” thing is hilarious. Their argument at the end boils down to a demand to retract a paper because it supposedly humiliates certain people, which they claim violates free speech. One would think that freedom of speech actually _includes_ being allowed to say things even if it humiliates others!

  2. The mole would have us all pat the fraudsters on the back and nominate them for more awards.

    By the mole’s reasoning, we should all be enjoying Piltdown man discussions in our archeological text books.

    Throw away your collected data, sayeth the mole. No need to keep scientific evidence laying around, just in case some pesky bitter anonymous “scientist” might care to actually do some science with it. Not to worry if your results are not reproducible . . . whyyyy they still might turn out to be really really good one day! I look forward to further discussion about this chaotic world of the mole, where irreproducible results yield such important advances.

    How on earth is science “self correcting” if not for serious practitioners pointing out shoddy presentations by cheaters? How is it “revenge” to point out shoddy science?

    And what does it say about our culture that the cheaters “have careers that allow them to mix with the society that the bitter ones found themselves excluded from”?

    Does the mole mingle with such society? Methinks the mole doth protest too much.

  3. “RIKEN President Ryoji Noyori has asked all laboratory and research group leaders to check all of their previous publications for doctored images and plagiarism.” That’s like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. An independent committee needs to be established. MEXT should finance this and should then expand this to all state-financed universities. All members of the independent committee should be suitably qualified, should also include an international panel, and should remain anonymous, to avoid conflicts of interest.

  4. Mole:

    How ironic is it that someone castigating anonymous whistleblowers publishes under an anonymous pseudonym???

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.