The week at Retraction Watch featured admissions of fake data from a biotech company whose compound is now in clinical trials, a look at who recycles text, and the apparent demotion of a researcher who had a paper on video games retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “The black flag has been hoisted. It isn’t coming down.” James Heathers, one of the researchers who uncovered issues in food researcher Brian Wansink’s work, explains why he does what he does. (Medium)
- A fictional retraction: The latest episode of the comedy The Big Bang Theory features one character forced to retract his statements on the status of scientific research. (Lincee Ray, Entertainment Weekly)
- This year’s Nobel Week prompted a flurry of criticism about the awards, from Ed Yong at the Atlantic, Jeremy Farrar at The Guardian, and Caroline Wagner at The Conversation. And here are eight rejected papers that were later part of a Nobel Prize. (Josh Nicholson, Authorea)
- “[U]ndergraduate research has expanded in the last couple of decades to hundreds of colleges of all sizes and types,” writes Paul Basken. “Still elusive, however, is good information on how best to shape those programs, assess their benefits, and repeat their successes.” (Chronicle of Higher Education)
- “Institutional variables, including the growing emphasis on external funding as an expectation or de facto requirement for faculty tenure and promotion at many research-oriented institutions, pose largely unappreciated hazards for psychological science,” says Scott Lilienfeld. (APS Observer)
- “And yes, we saw that information about a person’s marital status or family relationships came up especially when the applicants were women.” Why the Swedish Research Council sends observers to grant review meetings. (Siri Lindstad, KiFi Info)
- Scientists in countries with higher mobility and more international collaboration tend to be cited more often, notes Nature, drawing on two pieces it published this week.
- “What separates a predatory publisher from a legitimate science publisher?” asks Bill Sullivan. (PLOS Blogs)
- The JAMA Network will launch an open-access journal in 2018. (Kevin O’Reilly, AMA Wire)
- “[R]eplicability Should Not Be the Gold Standard in Psychological Science,” writes Patricia Greenfield. (Perspectives in Psychological Science)
- A new analysis shows that “acknowledgment practices truly do vary across disciplines and that this can lead to important further research beyond the sole interest in funding.” (PLOS ONE)
- “A 53-year-old doctor from Westport will spend a year and a day behind bars — and pay restitution of nearly $600,000 — for defrauding his former employer, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, for travel expense reimbursements, prosecutors said.” (Daily Voice)
- Do journals need a “readability index?” Dalmeet Singh Chawla reports on a much-discussed paper. (Chemistry World)
- “I’ve seen the technology get good enough that I’m now very concerned.” A scientist who spots fake images and videos. (Elizabeth Gibney, Nature)
- A judge in Virginia recommends ruling with the American Chemical Society in their case against Sci-Hub, which would mean blocking internet access to the latter. (Diana Kwon, The Scientist)
- Major publishers order ResearchGate to remove millions of papers that the publishers say infringe their copyright. (David Matthews, Times Higher Education)
- Lenny Teytelman says there are a lot of megamyths surrounding megajournals. (protocols.io)
- South Africa may stop subsidizing papers published in predatory journals. (Bekezela Phakathi, Business Live)
- Jill Bialosky, poet and editor, is accused of plagiarizing Wikipedia, the Academy of American Poets, and the Poetry Foundation for her memoir. (Maya Salam & Matt Stevens, New York Times)
- How does a lawyer correct the record at the U.S. Supreme Court? Send a letter to the chief justice. (Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal)
- If Getty can do it, maybe journals can too: In order to promote accuracy in their images, stock photo company Getty Images bans the use of photo manipulation. (Tyler Jenke, The Industry Observer)
- “Resist tribalism. Punish one another only for the mortal sin of making crap up.” Alice Dreger sounds a warning. (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
- “As an author, I, like most of my colleagues, have often been frustrated by conflicting referee reports…” (Troy Shinbrot, Physics Today)
- eLife‘s solution to the most frustrating part of the peer review process: Task editors and reviewers with reconciling their comments before sending everything back to the authors. (Stuart R.F. King, eLife)
- A study likely identifying an anonymous artist using public data prompts discussion of new ethical guidelines. (Elizabeth Gibney, Natre)
- “My newest paper cost me, personally, at least $5,919.21.” (Zen Faulkes, NeuroDojo blog)
- “[B]ased on current trends the underrepresentation of women could persist until 2027 for authors, 2034 for reviewers and 2042 for editors.” (Bridget M. Kuehn, eLife)
- Guidelines developed in 2010 to curtail sloppy reporting on animal studies have had little effect as many researchers remain ignorant of them or outright ignore them. (Martin Enserink, Science)
- Publishing in society journals is declining, putting science at risk in other ways. (Phil Davis, Scholarly Kitchen) Original editorial here.
- As interest grows among researchers in being recognized for their peer review work, the question of who owns peer reviews is getting more attention. (COPE)
- Who is Donald J. Wright, the acting secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services? Among other things, he was the former acting director for their Office of Research Integrity. (LinkedIn)
- To sign or not to sign: PLOS examined the benefits and drawbacks of letting reviewers identify themselves to the authors of the paper under review. (Sheryl P. Denker, PLOS Blogs)
- “Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is one particularly well-suited to higher education: Calling out B.S.,” our Ivan Oransky told students at The University of the South yesterday. The university, better known as Sewanee, gave him an honorary doctorate in civil law.
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.
Oh, wow. So, Donald J. Wright is a whole department, just by himself? 😉
“Donald J. Wright, the acting U.S. Department of Health & Human Services”
Fixed, thanks.
“As an author, I, like most of my colleagues, have often been frustrated by conflicting referee reports…” (Troy Shinbrot, Physics Today)
Suggested headline: “Falling between two stools? No, stalling between two fools”.
I highly recommend the first bulleted post:
https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/why-we-find-and-expose-bad-science-e47387a0e333
Thanks to RW for highlighting the article by James Heathers and putting it at the top of the list. It’s an awesome explanation from a whistleblower as to why he does what he does. It’s about science.
Also excellent is the Buzzfeed article that inspired Heathers:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/brian-wansink-cornell-smarter-lunchrooms-flawed-data?utm_term=.mvGZXoA7q#.omYm7krLy
That’s investigative journalism at its finest!
As far as acknowledgements differing across disciplines is concerned, previous research has suggested that disciplines where papers list authors in alphabetical order have more acknowledgments (and fewer authors) then disciplines that list authors in order of contribution. The idea is that if an additional author gets equal attribution (alphabetical order) you are more likely to acknowledge minor contributions (e.g. research assistants doing what they are paid for) with an acknowledgement. However, if an additional author gets less credit when his name is last, there is less cost in adding him/her as a last author.
I am in a “discipline where papers list authors in alphabetical order”. It would be completely inappropriate to not include an RA as a co-author if he/she contributed to the paper in any material way. It does not matter if this is what they are paid to do; we (the senior researchers) are also paid in part for doing research and writing papers, even if less directly.
If they come up with ideas, etc. that did not occur to the authors, yes. but if they are just following instructions (e.g. searching Google Scholar for publication outcomes of conference papers, tabulating results from an email survey, or something like that), I would just acknowledge their help. I get the impression that in many disciplines that do not use alphabetical order, co-authorship is used as a way to make up for not having money to properly pay RAs to do grunt work.