The week at Retraction Watch featured yet another case of a researcher peer reviewing his own paper, and an odd defense of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “This summer I discovered my third publication that I did not write.”
- What’s Bob Dylan’s h-index? A group of scientists has been sneaking his lyrics into their articles.
- “Scientists are taking to social media to challenge weak research, share replication attempts in real time, and counteract hype,” says The Scientist. “Will this online discourse enrich the scientific process?”
- “Unfortunately, these extraordinary claims are not justified by the data and analyses presented,” according to a comment on PubMed Commons on a paper about the genetics of schizophrenia.
- How can scientists respond when they don’t get fair credit? asks Janet Stemwedel.
- “Bayesian statistics, in short, can’t save us from bad science,” says The New York Times.
- Should a reader bother to try to have a 14-year-old Nature paper that he or she thinks has a mistake corrected?
- A publisher disappears, along with all of its journals, although one seems to be back online.
- September 23 was the deadline to submit comments to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy about how to solve the reproducibility problem. Victoria Stodden shares her responses, as does PeerJ.
- TheStreet.com has asked The Washington Post to retract a column by Steve Pearlstein about TheStreet’s Adam Feuerstein.
- “Whoever told you that you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet is a deeply cynical and untrustworthy person.”
- Parts of the opening speech for the university year at Université Libre de Bruxelles turn out to have been plagiarized from a speech by former French president Jacques Chirac. The person who
gave wrote the speech has been fired.
- Dorothy Bishop explains why most scientists don’t take Oxford researcher Susan Greenfield seriously.
- Jeffrey Beall reports on what he believes is the first mass resignation from an open access journal.