Weekend reads: LaCour loses job offer; new Science data guidelines; Macchiarini grant funding frozen

booksThis week at Retraction Watch saw us report on thousands of retractions from IEEE, which will have a serious effect on retraction record-keeping, a bizarre case of author impersonation, and a look at dentistry in outer space. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

5 thoughts on “Weekend reads: LaCour loses job offer; new Science data guidelines; Macchiarini grant funding frozen”

  1. Some may be interested (regrettably behind a paywall):
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) The importance of retractions and the need to correct the downstream literature. Journal of Scientific Exploration 29(2): 353-356. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/volume-29-number-2-2015
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) Issues in science publishing: what’s hot and what’s not? KOME 3(1): 81-87. http://komejournal.com/files/631.pdf DOI: 10.17646/KOME.2015.16
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology (Public Science Framework) 1(2): 34-37. http://files.aiscience.org/journal/article/html/70390007.html

    1. JATdS, you thought about applying for a Kakenhi for this stuff? Japan is on a bit of a righteousness binge at the moment about misconduct.

  2. Yes Institutions should release misconduct reports and their translated version quickly, but many institutions and universities don’t have a decent misconduct policy or a statutory committee for misconduct. Why is it not mandatory to specify a link to the istitutional policy and committee before being able to submit and publish any paper? How can we trust a paper coming from an institution without a clear policy about its internal misconduct?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *