Weekend reads: Gay canvassing study saga continues; Elsevier policy sparks concern; a string of scandals

As might have been expected, continuing developments in the Michael LaCour gay canvassing study retraction have drowned out coverage of stories that ordinarily might capture a lot of attention, such as fake case reports making their way into CDC data. A sampling:

• Berkeley graduate student David Broockman, one of the people whose critique brought down the study, “was consistently told by friends and advisers to keep quiet about his concerns lest he earn a reputation as a troublemaker, or —  perhaps worse — someone who merely replicates and investigates others’ research rather than plant a flag of his own.” A chilling quote from New York Magazine’s Jesse Singal’s devastating tick-tock of the case.
• The New York Times got the first interview with LaCour.
• There are a lot of questions about another of LaCour’s studies, according to BuzzFeed’s Virginia Hughes.
• Ivan went on PBS NewsHour to discuss the case.

But just like last week, there was plenty happening elsewhere:

• The new Elsevier sharing policy is actually a way to reverse the rights of authors, says Virginia Barbour.
• “If you want to see just how long an academic institution can tolerate a string of slow, festering research scandals,” writes Carl Elliott, “let me invite you to the University of Minnesota, where I teach medical ethics.”
• The Grumpy Geophysicist is grumpy indeed about a new NSF grant proposal requirement.
• How do we judge “good research?” asks Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (in German).
• See “Nova” in a publisher’s name? Stay away, says Jeffrey Beall.
• How did the scientific journal earn such power? asks Anna Gielas.
• Here’s how to distinguish yourself using ORCiD, from Wiley’s Phil Wright.
• Twitter “is one of the mechanisms transforming the communication of science,” says James Thompson.
• Want to double the NIH budget? Beware of unintended consequences, we argue in Lab Times.
• A student editor’s plagiarism allegations lead to the suspension of a reporter.
• Why do some scientific papers “suddenly become highly influential and cited,” years after they were published? A new study tries to figure out these “Sleeping Beauties.”
• Andrew Gelman recalls “the last time that a politically loaded survey was discredited because the researcher couldn’t come up with the data.”
• Easy mistake to make, right? The Pentagon accidentally sent live anthrax to nine different labs.
• “Macquarie University has revoked the degrees of two students and prevented a further 10 from graduating after an independent investigation revealed the students used an online ghost-writing service to complete their assignments.”
• Joyce Shoffner was harmed in Duke’s cancer trials run by Anil Potti. The Cancer Letter interviews her.
• The chocolate-diet sting study raised questions about hiring institutional review boards (IRBs). Here’s a journalist who did, and won an award.
• How bizarre: A local newspaper steals cartoons, butchers them, and adds different artists’ names.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].