Weekend reads: Does publishing take too long?; Zika data complaints; a Valentine’s Day special

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured two high-profile resignations linked to the Paolo Macchiarini case, as well as a Q&A with a long-frustrated — and now vindicated — whistleblower. 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, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy.

6 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Does publishing take too long?; Zika data complaints; a Valentine’s Day special”

  1. Sci-Hub resolves all the (sub req’d) indicated by RW on all its Weekend Reads, and gives a new perspective to PPPR.

  2. “posted genomes of the virus online did not receive proper credit in a publication,”
    I’ve had criticism from some for analysing GenBank data and finding new insights not published previously. Many of those GenBank sequences were not otherwise, and likely will never be, “published” by the depositors. This is a very valuable contribution they make. Surely the reference to the GenBank number itself constitutes a citation?

  3. According to the report in Atlantic: “Like its seedy dark-web neighbors, the Sci-Hub site is accessible only through Tor, a network of computers that passes web requests through a randomized series of servers in order to preserve visitors’ anonymity.”

    Doing a bit more research before writing down this massive pile of bovine excrement would have been beneficial, as one does not have to go to the “dark web” to access the site. Besides, Sci-Hub is the single best thing to happen in academic publishing since well – the printing press.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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