Weekend reads: Psychology stats errors abound; font choice dooms grant application

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured high-profile retractions from Nature and the BMJ. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Retractions outside of science:

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.

4 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Psychology stats errors abound; font choice dooms grant application”

  1. Rejecting grants for tiny fonts is GOOD! Once they’re in the system, reviewers are obliged to read them carefully no matter what, and “overstuffing” gives an unfair advantage to those who don’t follow the rules. Besides, it is an unreasonable demand on my middle-aged eyeballs. And remember, I’m an unpaid volunteer. So sorry, grow up and read the rules like the rest of us “people on the pavement.”

  2. Investigations on optical, thermal, mechanical and photoconductivity studies on pure and metal doped non linear optical l-Arginine Acetamide single crystals
    B. Anithaa, J. Karthikeyanb, A. Josepha, b, Arul Pragasam b
    a SRR Engineering College, Padur, Chennai, TamilNadu, India
    b Sathyabama University, OMR, Chennai, TamilNadu, India

    Optik – International Journal for Light and Electron Optics
    Available online 28 August 2015

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402615008128
    “This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.”

    How does this retraction conform to COPE retraction requirements?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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