Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support 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. Click here to review our Comments Policy.

8 thoughts on “Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates”

  1. Regarding Califf, as far as I know most if not all federal agencies exercise quite a bit of control over what can be published over their employees’ names, even if the employee in question had done the research or taken a lead role in writing the commentary. Yes, the employee may be an ‘author’ from the outside point of view, but nonetheless the agency can simply require the person to not have his or her name on the final product and can require changes.

  2. Comments made about papers published in Springer journals were linked to PubPeer through an Altmetric link (social cites) on the top page of each article. Those links no longer exist. Why is that?

    1. I am pleased to note (and extremely relieved) that 10 days after making my query, that the article metrics are back online for all Springer papers, including links to their respective PubPeer pages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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