The week at Retraction Watch featured authors making a difficult decision to retract once-promising findings about gliobastoma, and sanctions for a researcher in whose lab image manipulations were found. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “So, here we are! You’ve decided to join the dark side of Science. That’s great!” Ten Simple Rules for Scientific Fraud & Misconduct. (Nicholas Rougier and John Timmer)
- Peer review is a vital process for scientific publishing, but it exists in a black box without any insight into how well it functions. It’s time to start opening that box, argue our co-founders. (STAT)
- “The rich have been getting richer in the biomedical research enterprise, and the system favors those who are already doing pretty well…” (Maggie Kuo, Science)
- The Chinese Association for Science and Technology sets some “new” bottom lines for the country’s researchers, including “no fabrication” “no plagiarism” “no impersonation” and “no bribery.” (XinhuaNet)
- The Salk Institute is under fire for a “smear” on women suing it for gender discrimination – after it used the number of publications in Cell, Nature and Science in a defense of itself. (Meredith Wadman, Science)
- In its infancy, the journal eLife announced it would forgo embargoes in favor of open scientific communication. Recently, it found an embargo impossible to resist. (From our sister blog, Embargo Watch)
- “Too many research studies are poorly designed or executed. Too much of the resulting research evidence is withheld or disseminated piecemeal.” And this is harming patient care. (The BMJ)
- “I understand handling, formatting, publishing and maintaining scientific publications cost money. However, online publishing should be less expensive than print,” says Kenneth De Baets. (Sierra Williams, PeerJ blog)
- A former medical school dean “kept company with a circle of criminals and drug users who said he used methamphetamine and other drugs with them.” (Los Angeles Times)
- “No, we’re stuck with the literature, and we have to keep up with it, but we also have to remember that a reasonable percentage of it is wrong, and be prepared to ignore parts of it as needed.” (Derek Lowe, In The Pipeline)
- Science’s first “derpy”-based scandal occurs as scientists apologize for using the word in a paper. (Neuroskeptic, Discover)
- It’s tenure and promotion season for American universities, and Brian Nosek notices that open data and reproducibility are starting to matter in reviews. (Center for Open Science blog)
- Are researchers involved in predatory journals because they don’t recognize them? Blacklists, whitelists, and other strategies. (Tracy Vence, The Scientist)
- As one of the top political science journals makes open data-sharing and replication part of its review process, three researchers wonder what journals’ roles are in reproducibility. (Insider Higher Ed)
- Is a philosophy journal that allows authors to publish anonymously necessary for philosophical positions that are too controversial? (Justin W., Daily Nous)
- “Is neuroscience underpowered?” asks Neuroskeptic. (Discover)
- “The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) seeks input on the issue of statistical power in studies using human subjects, with the goal of improving the rigor and reproducibility of mental health research.”
- “I’m a scientist,” writes Joel Clement. “I’m blowing the whistle on the Trump administration.” (Washington Post)
- Chris Hartgerink and Jan Voelkel asked researchers to fake data. For good reason.
- “Psychology is beginning to right the ship, but it will need to confront the increasingly deleterious impact of the grant culture on scientific inquiry.” (Scott Lilienfeld, Perspectives on Psychological Science)
- “What happens when peer review and quality assurance goes wrong?” asks Chris Graf. (Wiley Exchanges)
- How often does scientific misconduct occur in Germany? A survey of ombudpersons tries to answer. (BR Recherche, in German)
- A new preprint concludes that “there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages.” (F1000 Research)
- “For those whose livelihood depends on grants, ‘Not Discussed’ is a peculiarly cruel designation.” Life as an early-career researcher, from Adam Ruben. (Science)
- “There are always negative statements we can make that sound smart, and when we are sitting with people we know are smart, we want to sound smart too. It is much easier to criticize than to defend praise.” More on peer review at NIH study sections. (Journal of Cell Science)
- Major German universities have been cancelling their contracts with Elsevier. (Diana Kwon, The Scientist)
- “These findings suggest that science policy, in particular funding decisions which rely on bibliometric indicators based on short-term citation counts and Journal Impact Factors, may be biased against “high risk/high gain” novel research.” (Research Policy)
- Nigerian institutions are being asked to develop research integrity methods to prevent plagiarism among researchers. (Henry Tyohemba, Leadership)
- “‘The massive amount of dysfunction and paperwork that will result from this decision boggles the mind‘ and will hobble basic research.” Some scientists really hate the NIH’s new definition of “clinical trial.” (Jocelyn Kaiser, Science)
- A study suggesting that pesticides harm bees is criticized by companies who funded the research and tried unsuccessfully to get the raw data. (Joe Sandler Clarke, Greenpeace Energy Desk)
- “The policy says that even while the abstracts are freely available online, they’re embargoed. And that, dear reader, makes no sense.” The American Diabetes Association steps in it. (From our sister publication, Embargo Watch)
- Do citations perpetuate white heteromasculinity? Two professors say yes after observing that white men are disproportionately cited. (Toni Airaksinen, Campus Reform)
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].