Weekend reads: Open data’s downsides; do journals serve a purpose?; fraud allegations down in China

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured news that a religion journal wouldn’t be retracting a paper despite evidence of forgery in the evidence it relied on, and also news that we’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

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.

4 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Open data’s downsides; do journals serve a purpose?; fraud allegations down in China”

  1. Re: Netherlands, “survey every researcher” seems a bit of a stretch. The details say there will be “a national survey of researchers and research grants into the area”. At best this means every researcher has the potential or opportunity to respond (by answering the survey). They cannot force every researcher to participate (that’s coercion).

  2. A story above concerns a researcher with 13 retractions receiving new funding.

    Exciting preliminary data can make a huge difference to the success of a grant application. Yet grant applications are subjected to absolutely minimal scrutiny compared to publications (for many programmes a majority of reviewers will never even submit their reports). It seems inevitable that those prepared to cheat in publications also cheat in grant applications, with impunity and success.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.