Weekend reads: What do PhDs earn?; university refuses to release data; collaboration’s dark side

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the huge problem of misidentified cell lines, a check-in with a company that retracted a paper as it was about to go public, and Diederik Stapel’s 58th retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Retractions Outside of The Scientific Literature:

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.

22 thoughts on “Weekend reads: What do PhDs earn?; university refuses to release data; collaboration’s dark side”

  1. Delighted to see you bringing attention to the refusal of the authors of the £5 million, taxpayer-funded PACE trial of exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome to hand over their data to Professor James Coyne.

    Professor Coyne requested the data of one of PACE’s papers that was published in PLOS One. He cited PLOS One’s requirement that authors who submit papers to the journal agree to share their data.

    The PACE authors bizarrely treated this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act rather than under PLOS One’s rules, made him wait the maximum 20 working days for no good reason, and then refused his request as “vexatious”.

    Patients, who have long criticised the appallingly bad science in PACE, are hoping that PLOS One will be the first scientific institution to stand up to the PACE authors and will enforce their data-sharing policy on pain of retraction of the paper.

    Patients want good science: and they want bad science exposed. The PACE authors are dragging their own reputations through the dirt, that of their universities, and that of this £5 million trial, in their insistence on keeping the data from independent researchers.

  2. Some may find my most recent papers published this week of interest.

    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) What’s not being discussed, or considered, in science publishing? The Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 16(2): 130-132.
    DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.928

    Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J. (2015) The role of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review versus traditional peer review. KOME 3(2): 90-94.
    DOI: 10.17646/KOME.2015.27

  3. Please beware of what you wish for: peer review is like democracy – a flawed and sometimes ridiculous system that is much better than the alternatives

  4. Sacha noted: “Professor Coyne requested the data of one of PACE’s papers that was published in PLOS One. He cited PLOS One’s requirement that authors who submit papers to the journal agree to share their data. ” That being true, the obvious action of the authors or PLOS editors is to retract their paper in PLOS, because it violates the journal’s requirements. It is an interesting situation.

  5. I don’t know about a retraction at this time, but perhaps PLOS editors are considering issuing an expression of concern. They have done so in at least one occasion in the recent past for an instance in which authors failed to share a strain of bacteria.

    The PLOS ONE Editors (2014) Expression of Concern: Bacillus pumilus Reveals a Remarkably High Resistance to Hydrogen Peroxide Provoked Oxidative Stress. PLoS ONE 9(7): 3100716. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100716

  6. Reading the “vexatious” claim by the university for a request to release data reminds me of Yogi Berra’s deja vu all over again.



    The fact that large organizations (including publishers) want to be secretive and protect their own, even when it involves disregarding their own policies, shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

    It’s what they do.

    1. See http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=87754 for a “Notification from PLOS staff” relating to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040808

      (…..) “PLOS staff are following up on the different concerns raised about this article as per our internal processes. As part of our follow up we are seeking further expert advice on the analyses reported in the article, and we will evaluate how the request for the data from this study relates to the policy that applies to the publication. These evaluations will inform our next steps as we look to address the concerns that have been noted.”

  7. Oh wow, I was reporting 12 years ago on the mess that U.S. economic sanctions created for scientific publishing. Amazing that OFAC is still being called on for clarification. Hopefully it’s now clearer!

    1. Maybe. However, the wikipedia states [1]:
      “Linguistically and formally, Flemish is not and does not refer to a current language or dialect but refers to the region, culture and people of (West) Belgium or Flanders. Flemish people speak (Belgian) Dutch in Flanders, the Flemish part of Belgium.”
      From what I understand, the distance between Flemish and (Netherlands) Dutch is similar to that between French spoken in France and Belgium.
      translate.google.com readily detects the apache article as being in Dutch.

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish

      1. Well, if wikipedia says it…

        FYI google translate doesn’t have Flemish listed, and Dutch is the nearest thing. The two differ by about 10k words that are in common use.

    1. Thanks for flagging that, the URL shortener appears to have stopped working. Fixed, along with the missing “for.”

    1. But why in post-publication peer review only but not in the first peer review for example, or even for an anonymous manuscript submission to avoid any bias?
      The peer review is getting sick, so anonymous submission and anonymous peer-review may be a good remedy to reduce its damages.
      A post peer review would transform the publication to vicious cycle or a continuous, endless quarrels => time waste.

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.