Weekend reads: A proposal to end NSF watchdog; Power pose criticism redux; A limit to lifetime word count?

The week at Retraction Watch featured a journal that will pay authors royalties, a new estimate of how many papers are affected by contaminated cell lines, and threats by more than 20 researchers at Johns Hopkins to resign from a journal’s editorial board if a paper isn’t retracted. 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. If you have comments or feedback, you can reach us at retractionwatchteam@gmail.com.

7 thoughts on “Weekend reads: A proposal to end NSF watchdog; Power pose criticism redux; A limit to lifetime word count?”

  1. The bill Paul introduced also includes a provision that every federal proposal review panel include a “taxpayer advocate” so that “silly research” is not funded and to ensure that research that is funded is valuable.

    1. We know from bitter experience what that will do: research that involves organisms with goofy sounding names (“nude mice”) or other easily mocked elements will become hard to fund. Colleagues who studied the effect of antidepressants on nerve cell function, in worms, struggled with this a lot.

      1. Not to mention research on controversial issues will also be dropped. So much for HIV prevention, especially in marginalized communities.

    2. So, those paying the bills should have no say in money matters? The scientific community needs to build trust with the taxpayers, not elitism.

    3. More transparency (i.e. making all grant applications public) might somewhat reduce the abuse of the system, including by those of high status who obtain grants from multiple programs with the same or very similar research proposals, then use the funds more broadly (i.e. to support not their graduate students), further increase their status at their institution, and as a result line up their own pockets and those of their institutions with 55-65% overhead charges on the grants.

  2. Regarding the Iranian survey, we can read that “The majority of participants were native (104, 81%)”. Am I missing something here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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