Weekend reads: Science press releases under fire; a new plagiarism excuse; win $1,000

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of an entire issue of a journal and a renewable energy researcher agree to retract ten papers for recycling, and saw The Australian put us on its list of “30 Most Influential” in higher education for 2016. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• Journals tend to promote “weak science” – aka observational studies – more often than randomized controlled trials, according to a new study. David Matthews covers the research for Times Higher Education.
• Related: Press releases have come under a lot of scrutiny in the past few weeks. The VA San Diego corrected one on e-cigarettes, following criticism from Bradley Fikes at the San Diego Tribune. Questions from Paul Knoepfler led to the correction of a release on “squeezable” stem cells. And the University of Maryland is reviewing how a press release about an unpublished study about chocolate milk and concussions ever saw the light of day (Health News Review; more from the Baltimore Business Journal). All of that led Knoepfler and New York Magazine’s Jesse Singal to suggest that press releases be subjected to more accountability, as Health News Review has begun doing.
• A new excuse for plagiarism: “I acted out of patriotism,” says a letter writer in the Delta County Independent. And here are some others.
• Be one of 1,000 researchers who wins $1,000 for pre-registering your research, from The Center for Open Science.
• In economics, women don’t get full credit for work done with men, says a new study by Heather Sarsons (via Justin Wolfers in New York Times).
• Female professors are woefully outnumbered at medical schools in the U.S., reports Melissa Bailey (STAT).
• Do prestigious journals attract bad science? asks Julia Belluz at Vox.
• Two scientists are asking the Australian Research Integrity Committee to review a misconduct investigation into the work of Levon Khachigian that cleared him (Sophie Scott, ABC).
• Should journals knowingly publish fake studies? This one did. Our new column for STAT.
• Stem cell scientists Piero Anversa and Annarosa Leri are appealing a judge’s dismissal of their case against Harvard. (Hat tip: Theresa Defino)
• As a child, Emma Yasinski “enrolled in a study whose results were never published—meaning I’ll live the rest of my life with a heart implant, but may never know how well it actually works.” (The Atlantic)
• “A short guide to ethical editing for new editors:” An update from the Committee on Publication Ethics.
• Who is meta-researcher John Ioannidis? An interview with Mendelspod.
• There is “absolutely no correlation between rejection rates and impact factor,” writes Pascal Rocha de Silva of Frontiers, based on an analysis of data from a number of publishers.
• Why are the referees’ reports I receive as an editor so much better than the ones I receive as an author? Three researchers try to explain in Scientometrics (sub req’d).
• A researcher reprimanded by the National Science Foundation called the agency’s ban on his receiving new funding “overly punitive” but called its report an “exoneration.” (Daily Camera and News & Observer).
• “Why do you have so many tables?” asks a reviewer. “Did you go to Ikea?” (Shit My Reviewers Say)
• A former GlaxoSmithKline executive “says he was fired for pointing out flaws in studies used to tout the benefits of the drugmaker’s Nicoderm line of smoking-cessation products,” Bloomberg reports.
• The problem with the scholarly publishing industry may not be open access vs. subscription, says Jeffrey Beall. It may be the people working in it.
• Is publisher Frontiers in trouble? asks Micah Allen.
• “Errors and outright fraud in science have become a topic of increasing interest in recent years,” writes Joseph Neff in the News & Observer.
• Scientists, give up your emails, says Paul Thacker (New York Times).
• Once, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said fracking was safe. Now some of its scientists seem to disagree, Bloomberg reports.
• Anja Castensson looks at the effects of impact culture on science, in Curie. (in Swedish)
• “Is it possible to think scientifically and creatively at once?” Maria Konnikova on confirmation bias, and more (New York Times).
• “A new study revises the most famous (and totally made up) ‘fact’ about the microbiome,” reports Ed Yong (The Atlantic).
• Kent Anderson has left his post as publisher at AAAS/Science to launch a consultancy, Caldera.

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].