Weekend reads: Calls for retraction a bad idea?; is scientific fraud a crime?

This week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual excuse for missing data, and a guilty plea in court for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• Hey NFL, calls for retraction are generally a bad idea. Our latest for STAT. (Here’s The New York Times’ response to the NFL’s call to retract a story in the newspaper, courtesy of Deadspin.)
• “The NFL’s shoddy science means we know even less about concussions,” writes Christie Aschwanden at FiveThirtyEight.
• Should scientists who commit fraud go to jail? asks Amy Ellis Nutt at the Washington Post.
• Scientific misconduct has attracted the attention of criminologists, David Matthews reports in Times Higher Education.
• Scientists are looking for ways to stop fake papers, writes Torah Katchur at the CBC.
• “Why does the impact factor continue to play such a consequential role in academia?” ask Alex Rushforth and Sarah de Rijcke.
• “Is scientific misconduct a bigger problem than we think?” asks Catherine Jex at ScienceNordic.
• “Hiding criticisms is not productive, he says, and won’t improve science.” Ferric Fang — a member of the The Center For Scientific Integrity’s board of directors — on why he studies misconduct. (Science)
• “I think we need a sort of ‘Godwin’s law’ in science,” says Debora Weber-Wulff. “If you involve a lawyer, you lose the argument.”
• “Academics admit feeling pressure to embellish possible impact of research,” write Jennifer Chubb and Richard Watermeyer. (The Conversation)
• Hilda Bastian “speaks – and draws – truth to scientific power.” (Karen Weintraub, STAT)
• “Should academics be paid for peer review?” asks David Matthews at Times Higher Education.
• Peer review is like a lottery, says Gunter Vestergard. (ScienceNordic)
• Five researchers from an adolescent study that was nearly blocked have received the Golden Goose Award.
• “Conflict-of-interest information is often buried deep in studies,” writes Julia Belluz of Vox. “These researchers want to change that.”
• A highly criticized press release about chocolate milk and concussions touted the work of a researcher who had failed to disclose big donations from the dairy industry, Health News Review reports. And more from Sarah Gantz, Baltimore Business Journal.
• Here are seven things every researcher should know about scholarly publishing, from Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf at Scholarly Kitchen.
• Debora Weber-Wulff has a confusing case of plagiarism from Pakistan.
• Randomized controlled trials co-authored by industry employees “were significantly more likely to report favorable study results,” according to a new study in JAMA Internal Medicine. (sub req’d)
• “I was a terrible PhD supervisor,” says Sian Townson. “Don’t make the same mistakes I did.” (The Guardian)
• “The replication crisis is my crisis,” says Michael Inzlicht in Undark.
• Two finance professors are embroiled in a globe-spanning authorship dispute, reports Kylar Loussikian of The Australian. (sub req’d)
• “Self-plagiarism was commonplace because it was largely acceptable, simultaneous publication in different languages was considered a bonus, there were shocking instances of data falsification and fabrication…” A look back at scientific publishing sixty years ago. (Journal of Neurochemistry)
• Denmark and Sweden are taking another look at how they investigate scientific misconduct allegations, Catherine Jex of ScienceNordic reports.
• “To Address Sexual Harassment, NIH Should Support Institutions That Foster Positive Research Climates,” says Janet Stemwedel. (Forbes)
• “The best defense against the influence of crappy science is for audiences to maintain their skepticism,” says Roy Benaroch. (KevinMD)
• Meet the 8-bit game that makes statistics addictive, courtesy of Ed Yong. (The Atlantic)
• The number of papers about spinal surgery has doubled in the last decade, writes European Spine Journal editor Robert Gunzburg. Is that a good thing?
• How do you read a scientific paper? Several researchers weigh in for Elisabeth Pain at Science.

Retractions Outside of the Scientific Literature

• Can’t get someone to retract? China has a solution: Hold their family hostage.

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. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.