Weekend reads: Sensationalism in science journalism and PR; Beall’s predatory publisher list grows

Happy New Year! This week, we took a look back at 2014. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• “What is reprehensible is the needless sensationalism and fear-mongering in journalistic communication of scientific results, achieved by sacrificing scientific accuracy and over-hyping incomplete parts of results – thereby misleading the general public and guiding their understanding of the research into a specific direction,” argues Kausik Datta, writing of the disconnect between science and press releases.
• Related: “Please, journalists, get a clue before you write about science,” write Bob O’Hara and GrrlScientist of coverage of a cancer study.
• Jeffrey Beall’s 2015 list of predatory publishers is out. It continues to grow dramatically.
• In another post, Beall wonders if he’s uncovered a paper mill.
• China may be seeing a dip in research misconduct, but it’s still rampant, Nature reports.
• “Science Isn’t Science If It Isn’t Reproducible,” say the editors of a journal.
• “I still do not think that data was manipulated, since I have neither reasons nor evidence to believe so,” writes Jens Förster of his retracted paper. “But these events have unforeseen dynamics and I understand this as an act of precaution that might have been necessary for a very young journal.”
• Three observations about anonymous peer review from a systems biologist.
• A Science study subject to an Expression of Concern will be retracted soon, Science News reports (sub req’d). The Bielawski group has a number of papers under review.
• Pfizer has threatened pharmacists and doctors if they take the name of one its drugs, Lyrica, in vain, according to Boing Boing.
• Which researchers boycotted a major German newspaper’s rankings, and why?
• Ancient “aircraft could fly backwards, travel to other planets,” say speakers at prestigious India science conference. One scientist wants to see this sort of talk end.
• How Trustworthy Is Published Science? asks Michael White, who argues that “the more recent emphasis on exact replication of experiments may be misguided.”
• The Scientist interviews arXiv founder Paul Ginsparg on the occasion of the server’s millionth preprint.
• Which blogs do science bloggers read? Paige Brown Jarreau found out.
• Julia Belluz invites us to meet Ben Goldacre, the anti-Dr. Oz.
• Doctors aren’t very accurate on Twitter, says a tiny study.