Weekend reads: How to speed up peer review; the whipsaw of science news headlines; data-sharing stance sparks resignation request

The week at Retraction Watch featured more fallout from a citation-boosting episode, and a look at when animal research becomes unnecessary and cruel. 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 daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: How to speed up peer review; the whipsaw of science news headlines; data-sharing stance sparks resignation request”

  1. This study may seem banal, but it heralds uncertainty about the reproducibility of yawning research

    I did not realise until reading the SLATE item that Gallup and Platek — authors of the “semen-is-antidepressant-because-oxytocin” theory — were also pioneers in the field of yawning-contagion research.

  2. “[A]uthors infringe copyright most of the time not because they are not allowed to self-archive, but because they use the wrong version, which might imply their lack of understanding of copyright policies and/or complexity and diversity of policies.”

    Perhaps its more like, authors are indifferent to copyright because there are seldom penalties. To move forward with publishing, authors sign copyright transfer agreements that spell it out in clear language. It’s not just the publishers’ vs. authors’ versions. The abstract (as far as I could read) didn’t mention embargoes, which are commonly 1-year. I expect most ResearchGate members who post copyrighted versions blow those off too.

  3. Brian Wansink, the head of Cornell’s Food and Brand lab, is under renewed scrutiny amid allegations of data irregularities and duplicate publications.

    Nick Brown at Groningen, who is documenting the duplication of text and numerical results in Wansink’s food-control research output, is the same guy who previously documented the amount of made-up stuff in Barbara Frederickson’s positive-psychology hocus-pocus, and helped discredit the sadness-affects-colour-vision nonsense from Eliot’s laboratory. Kudos to Brown. Have you considered interviewing him for Retractionwatch?

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Your email address will not be published.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.