Weekend reads: P values banned, climate skeptic fails to disclose corporate funding, editors behaving badly

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured a change of heart by a journal, and a look at Nature’s addition of double-blind peer review. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.

7 thoughts on “Weekend reads: P values banned, climate skeptic fails to disclose corporate funding, editors behaving badly”

  1. Peter Nijkamp of Free University Amsterdam was recently awarded with an Honorary Doctorate Degree by the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland). Journalist Frank van Kolfschooten presents details on his blog about this event (including a press release of the Free University of Amsterdam about this event, written by Peter Nijkamp himself). See http://frankvankolfschooten.nl/wordpress/?p=755 for more details (in Dutch).

  2. An English translation of the settlement between Richard Gill of Leiden University and Peter Nijkamp / Karima Kourtit of Free University Amsterdam is now available on the homepage of Richard Gill http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/declaration.txt
    Richard Gill has also initiated a crowdfunding project to get an English version of the entire report of the anonymous complainer (NN) in the case against Peter Nijkamp and Karima Kourtit, see http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Nijkamp/ and https://www.gofundme.com/namegc for more details (also with links to postings on RW).

  3. The departure of Norwegian medical journal editor Charlotte Haug brings the journal’s independence into question.

    BMJ link is paywalled (showing only enough to hint at ‘resignation’ under duress) and the second link is broken. Can you say more?

  4. A PubPeer commentator is concerned by the fact that Elsevier and Springer are making profit from a duplicate publication, stating: “No advantage for the careful shopper here: Springer and Elsevier are selling the duplicate papers for the same price, $39.95.” The commentator further indicates his/her disgust with the authors: “Some of the same authors have since gone on to create “super-duplicate” publications – duplicate publications that cite pairs of earlier duplicate publications:

    The full comments here:

    Perhaps it’s time for mainstream STM publishers like Elsevier and Springer to start addressing real concerns about actual or potential profit from duplicate publications, erroneous science and other issues plaguing many of their journals. The list is only going to get bigger and bigger as move swing into PPPR mode, so the sooner these publishing behemouths address these issues publicly, the better.

  5. The issue of special issues as big money makers for Gold OA publishers deserves much wider examination. So, Beall should be praised for raising awareness:

    But, as one of the anonymous commentators (“A concerned author”) on that blog comments, so too, must we then also analyze publishers like Elsevier and their Procedia: “By the way, have you had a chance to look at the Procedia published by elsevier. The use the same ways as you mentioned and the articles have quite poor quality, although there is a guest editor for each issue. Papers are usually collected through spamming the researchers, students, and conferences. How would you explain this?” This commentator may be onto something, in fact, given that the referenced Procedia have appeared at RW before:

    And other retractions in other Elsevier Procedia, for example:

    In fact, enters the keywords “procedia retracted” in Elsevier’s sciencedirect.com and observe quite a number of retractions from Elsevier Procedia. This volume of retractions in itself deserves much greater attention than the “special issues” published by so-called predatory open access journals.

  6. “The null hypothesis significance testing procedure is invalid” declares an editor, referring to several papers previously published by said same editor. There’s some heavy weight lifting statistical theoretical advance right there. Awesome! As a statistician, I look forward to more statistical advances by David Trafimow. I’ll tear up that useless Ph.D. certificate I received from the University of Washington. The statistician professors there were such boneheads, with their Stanford degrees and stuff! How did I not see that??

    ” . . . we hope that by instituting the first NHSTP ban, we demonstrate that psychology does not need the crutch of the NHSTP . . . ”

    Throw away that crutch, and walk! Ye are healed!

    This is going to be a hoot.

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.