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? 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].