The week at Retraction Watch featured commentary on yet another paper claiming a link between autism and vaccines, a welcome useful retraction notice, and a rewrite of a paper that influenced car seat guidelines. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “Plagiarism has been weaponized by those who want to change the world to their whims.” (Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today)
- There exists “strong evidence of bias against research from low income countries,” says Richard Smith. (BMJ Opinion)
- Most scientific editors still come from the US or the UK, Katrina Kramer reports. (Chemistry World)
- How many papers really end up never being cited? Richard van Noorden found out it’s less than you probably think. (Nature)
- Nature Editor-in-Chief Philip Campbell announces he will step down in July 2018. He has helmed the journal for 22 years. (Quirin Schiermeier, Nature)
- Eight current and former journal editors offer their advice on how to be the ringmaster. (Times Higher Education)
- “How Reproducible Are Isotherm Measurements in Metal–Organic Frameworks?” (Chemistry of Materials)
- Read what our Co-Founder Ivan Oransky had to say about retractions and scientific integrity to the UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee. (Transcript, House of Commons)
- “Does anyone actually read editorials?” asks Chemistry of Materials editor-in-chief Jillian Buriak.
- Senate Democrats accuse a Trump appointee to a key environmental post of plagiarizing other nominees, including EPA chief Scott Pruitt, during her confirmation hearing. (US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)
- A case of Coke: How Coca-Cola influenced obesity researchers through email exchanges and what it should mean for conflict of interest statements. (Journal of Public Health Policy)
- An Australian university is taking a closer look at doctoral work done there by a fish researcher who later falsified data in a Science paper. (John Ross, The Australian) See our previous coverage of the case here.
- Charged with defrauding a provincial government health insurance provider in Canada, a doctor is found guilty of bilking taxpayers out of millions. (Toronto Sun)
- A new, cross-disciplinary survey shows support for open peer review. (PLOS One)
- With more co-authors on each paper, it gets harder to “identify those who should be held morally responsible in cases of scientific misconduct.” (Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy)
- “One of our top priorities this coming year is to improve the author experience since our authors are at the center of everything we do,” PLOS CEO Alison Mudditt writes in an open letter. (The Official PLOS Blog)
- “It is anything but common to publicly declare that one has lost confidence in one’s own previous findings,” but the Loss-of-Confidence Project hopes to change that.
- “Predatory publishing can no longer be called … a fly in the chardonnay of scholars.” (Phaedra Cress, The Scholarly Kitchen)
- “Peer reviewers need more nurturing,” says Richard Catlow.Three European scientific societies explain why. (Nature)
- Idaho officials are challenging a federal court order to destroy data from tracking collars placed on elk and wolves. (Keith Ridler, AP)
- How’s that paper doing? New tools to measure online buzz will be“fully auditable.” (Jeffrey Perkel, Naturejobs Blog)
- “A nurse who specialises in HIV treatment is suing Trinity College Dublin and a former thesis supervisor, claiming her research was plagiarised.” (Mark Tighe, The Sunday Times)
- Was that actually plagiarism, or is it just a common method? Experts dissect a recent case involving voting patterns. (Brad Petrishen, Worcester Telegram & Gazette)
- How to respond to reviewers: Advice from Wim Crusio.
- “One of London’s top universities has been fined £70,000 after a scientist suffocated while he was working in a hospital laboratory that filled with nitrogen.” (Tristan Kirk, The Evening Standard)
- “The future of automated scientific writing is upon us—and that’s a good thing,” says Dan Engber. (Slate) Here’s our take from last month.
- A Chinese medical student’s master’s degree has been revoked for plagiarism. (Ecns.com)
- Altmetric’s list of top 100 articles for 2017 is out. But what does it mean? asks Kent Anderson. (Scholarly Kitchen)
- How do you choose the right journal to publish in? Jenny Delasalle walks through the process. (A Librarian Abroad)
- When it comes to improving reproducibility, “It pays to know when taking shortcuts is acceptable, and which it’s safe to take,” says Nessa Carson. (Chemistry World)
- “[C]urrent norms for disclosure in nutrition science are inadequate and propose that greater transparency is needed, including a broader definition of what constitutes disclosure-worthy information,” argue John Ioannidis and John Trepanowski. (JAMA)
- Mark Wilson “had to use freedom of information laws to determine how much universities in New Zealand spend on journal subscriptions to give researchers and students access to the latest research.” (The Conversation)
- What was behind the U.S. Department of Energy’s removal of the phrase “climate change” from abstracts? Emails shed some light. (Christa Marshall, E&E News, via Science)
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].