The week at Retraction Watch featured a the story of how a nonexistent paper earned 400 ciations, a lawsuit filed against a journal for publishing criticism, and the retraction and replacement of a paper by a group of anti-vaccine advocates. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- Ethically dubious research backed by tech billionaire Peter Thiel could cost a university millions in funding. (Beth Mole, Ars Technica)
- A stolen bone and a mysterious package lead to major concerns about three papers on early human occupation of Europe. (Ewen Callaway, Nature)
- Fear that press coverage counts as prior publication is giving scientists cold feet.” (Cassandra Willyard, The Open Notebook)
- In Singapore, as competition rises, so does the risk of academic fraud. (Yuen Sin, The Straits Times)
- A New Zealand university is investigating the conduct of researchers who let the subject of a ‘noise sensitisation’ experiment drive a vehicle despite experiencing a ‘severe’ response after visiting a wind farm,” reports Peter Hannam. (Brisbane Times)
- “That preprints render priority a fuzzy matter is a good thing, revealing what an artificial construct it always was.” Philip Ball looks at how ChemRxiv has fared in its early days. (Chemistry World)
- “You’re a Researcher Without a Library: What Do You Do?” Jake Orlowitz explains. (Medium)
- “65 out of the 100 most cited papers are paywalled.” (Josh Nicholson and Alberto Pepe, Authorea)
- A teacher says researchers who study voting patterns plagiarized her dissertation. (Bill Shaner, Worcester Magazine.)
- “It’s time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers,” says Rebecca Lawrence. (LSE Impact Blog)
- “Like all good academic publications, it is way over the deadline, with excessive footnotes, and petty comments from Reviewer 2.” The Academia Obscura book is out.
- How do “working scientists themselves understand, conceptualize, apply, and communicate norms and standards for good research practice?” A new survey tried to find out. (Perspectives on Science, preprint)
- “Moneyball”-style advanced analytics could evaluate researchers’ scientific and economic contributions, says Julia Lane. (Nature)
- “Resources, equity, and incentives” are three notable challenges in sharing clinical trial data, from a funder’s perspective. (NEJM)
- “The dismal science remains dismal:” Adam Rogers takes stock of the replication crisis in economics. (WIRED)
- Years after the Ebola crisis, “much medical knowledge about the disease remains inaccessible.” (Till Bruckner, Devex)
- Single-blind review gives a “significant advantage” to famous authors and authors from “high-prestige institutions.” (PNAS)
- Need a paper? Web broswer plug-ins may help you find an open-access copy. (Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Nature)
- Anonymous survey: 60 percent of Middle Eastern researchers admit to misconduct.” (Rachael Pells, Times Higher Education)
- Self-proclaimed “grumpy old researcher” Enrico Traversa reflects on his publishing experiences, then and now.” (Material Matters)
- A new alliance of society-published journals wants to take on their for-profit counterparts. (Angela Cochran, Scholarly Kitchen)
- A non-profit group has retracted a flyer that seemed to be promising donors a private meeting with the U.S. secretary of defense. (Carl Prine, San Diego Union-Tribune)
- “‘Predatory’ is a loaded term” and its use hinders serious discussion about publishing practices. (Kevin Smith, Insights)
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].