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:

• Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduces legislation to change how the U.S. funds basic research, including eliminating the NSF’s Office of Inspector General. (Jeffrey Mervis, Science)
• Even as Amy Cuddy’s power pose work grew in popularity, the evidence for it crumbled. (Susan Dominus, New York Times) And Andrew Gelman weighs in on learning from mistakes.
• “Imagine a world in which each scientist is allotted a fixed number of words that they can publish over her or his career.” (Brian C. Martinson, Nature)
• A preprint from earlier this year offers a new model that suggests the drive for novel, positive results is undermining scientific integrity. (Gemma Conroy, Nature Index)
• A British Parliament committee will have a hearing on October 24th on the increasing trend of research misconduct. You can see the evidence Retraction Watch submitted here.
• Why do we accept jerks and selfish assholes in science? asks Junhyong Kim. (Theory B blog)
• “Our point of view is that, yes, there should be much more transparency.” Our co-founder talks to Wendy Stueck of The Globe and Mail) about misconduct investigations in Canada.
• A study on the impact of China’s one-child policy sparks debate, with independent researchers calling on the journal to withdraw the paper or at least provide the peer reviewers’ comments. (Mara Hvistendahl, Science)
• “Predatory publishers are not the only predators in the system.” (Lauren Vogel, CMAJ News)
• Roger Pielke, Jr. points out how the authors of a recent study on tracking how much heat the oceans are storing as an indicator of global warming stole the original idea from his father. (The Climate Fix blog)
• Between 1982 and 2002, North Carolina’s major universities shared five retractions between them, but in the past 15 years, those four institutions have racked up 93 retractions. (Jason DeBruyn, WUNC)
• After five years, the editors at eLife reflect on their approach to peer review and what revisions are still needed for published research. (Randy Schekman, eLife)
• George Washington University retracts and replaces a press release after reviewers and Health News Review call it “an exercise in spin.” (Kevin Lomangino & Kathlyn Stone, Health News Review)
• Editors may be biased in their acceptance of manuscripts by how much difficulty they have finding reviewers for the paper in question. (Phil Davis, The Scholarly Kitchen)
• Kirkus Reviews retracts and replaces a starred review for American Heart, the latest book at the center of the battle over diversity in young adult literature. (Ruth Graham, Slate)
• A survey in Iran finds that almost one in five undergraduate students and more than a quarter of postgraduate studentscommit research misconduct. (Iran Journal of Public Health)
• Five notable German researchers say they’ll leave editorial positions at Elsevier journals as institutions across the country push for a greater commitment to open access. (Gretchen Vogel, Science)
• A study of peer review found that random chance played a strong role in determining whether a paper was accepted. (Colleen Flaherty) We highlighted the original preprint in 2015.
• One of the biggest indications of a spam journal is its terrible syntax, and watching for that is one of the easiest ways to not help them “to a healthy grow.” (Geoffrey K. Pullum, Language Log blog)
• “Knowing math or being a skillful programmer by no means guarantees a good understanding of statistics” Statistical errors even scientists make. (Kevin Grey, KDnuggets)
• Scientists in India are confused about which papers will count for career advancement after an announcement that those with article processing charges would be excluded. (Vasudevan Mukunth, The Wire)
• “We want to clearly condemn the spread of falsehoods; the actions of a former reporter doesn’t reflect the ethical code or values of The Rotunda as a whole.” A student newspaper retracts an article for made-up quotes.
• Michael Hoffman has some good things, and some not-so-good things, to say about the proposed update to the NIH’s genomic data sharing policy. (Medium)
• “It’s not hard to get factually dubious articles published,” writes John Pfaff in a New York Times op-ed about fact-checking at the U.S. Supreme Court. “Some industry groups appear to have their own nominally peer-reviewed journals, which provide the illusion of respectability for results skewed to advance their interests.”

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 [email protected].