Weekend reads: Widespread p-hacking; sexism in science (again); retraction totals

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured retractions by a high-profile cancer researcher, and a loss in court for PubPeer. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

7 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Widespread p-hacking; sexism in science (again); retraction totals”

  1. Peer review should be replaced by a rotating limited term contract independent private investigator interrogation group—-no PhDs, MDs—criminologists and science journalists—yes.

  2. about sexism in science: this ridiculous e-mail by some (insert your own descriptive noun here) from who know where is actually not very helpful. I don’t believe any serious scientist, never mind how much he hates women, will out himself like this towards a journal. The issue of sexism in science is about something else: incompatibility of research and family life, pregnancy as career suicide, glass ceiling for junior women scientists (which still exists http://goo.gl/NkYgv9 ) and so on. Outrage about stupid statements is like kicking in open doors, so we all can feel good about ourselves. The real problems of sexism in science are much more serious and integrated deeply into the system, thus much more difficult to correct
    Remember the Pimm case and the discussion on it? http://goo.gl/hXy87A

  3. to correct my previous comment!

    about sexism in science: all this indignation about this ridiculous e-mail by some (insert your own descriptive noun here) from who know where is actually not very helpful. I don’t believe any serious scientist, never mind how much he hates women, will out himself like this towards a journal. The issue of sexism in science is about something else: incompatibility of research and family life, pregnancy as career suicide, glass ceiling for junior women scientists (which still exists http://goo.gl/NkYgv9 ) and so on. Outrage about stupid statements is like kicking in open doors, so we all can feel good about ourselves. The real problems of sexism in science are much more serious and integrated deeply into the system, thus much more difficult to correct
    Remember the Pimm case and the discussion on it? http://goo.gl/hXy87A

  4. The study claiming to show that P-hacking “is widespread throughout science” actually, at best, shows that P-hacking is widespread throughout the the topics covered by PubMed. PubMed is not representative of all of science, so the conclusion is unwarranted.

    Curiously, the first author gets this right in the press coverage, where she says “throughout the life sciences”. First time I can recall that the press coverage of a paper was more accurate about the conclusions of a paper than the paper itself.

  5. For the request-for-male-reviewer image:
    It appeared in Pharyngula a week or so ago.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/03/10/somebody-just-takes-academic-sexism-for-granted/

    It emerges in the comment thread that the recipient of the e-mail was Nature reviewer Dr Barbara Marte (back in 2005). The redacted author was evidently a researcher into prostate cancer, who was convinced that a female reviewer could only have rejected the paper because prostate cancer did not affect her directly, and not because it was badly-written or unsubstantial.

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.