Weekend reads: Publishing hypocrisy; false truths; scientists go rogue

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured a heartfelt essay by John Ioannidis on what he called the hijacking of evidence-based medicine, as well as the story of a peer reviewer who stole text for his own paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Retractions Outside of the Scientific Literature

8 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Publishing hypocrisy; false truths; scientists go rogue”

  1. Re: “What does psychology’s reproducibility ‘crisis mean for the future of science?’ asks Brian Resnick in Vox.” Very little, in my opinion – as I do not believe that psychology really qualifies as a true science. I see it as a (wonderful) humanities subject that sometimes uses science-like methods. (The same goes for sociology and geography.)

  2. Michelle Meyer raises one possibility.

    It’s thoroughly unclear to me what this tweet adds to anything. The issue is Rosenbaum’s assertion that Reed had stage IV disease before the morcellation.

  3. How have scholarly journals converted to open access? A new report takes a look.

    I find no small irony in the Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication’s producing an effectively unreadable document. Multiple vertical scroll bars have been a hallmark of incompetent design for many years, and there’s apparently no way to view it in its entirety. Moreover, it’s necessary to have a second window open to follow along with the references.

  4. Is the linke in this line, “When it comes to data, a new set of proposed guidelines advocates “being ‘intelligently open’, rather than ‘religiously open.’”” correct? I have looked at the manuscript that is linked to but cannot find the words “intelligently” or “religiously” in it? I am not sure the link is correct.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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