Weekend reads: How to kill zombie citations; wanted: 6,000 new journals; does peer review matter anymore?

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction and replacement of a diet study in the New England Journal of Medicine, an introduction to the philosophy plagiarism police, and an explanation for why some PLOS ONE retraction notices include more information lately. Here’s what was happening elsewhere (and it was a lot):

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), 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 team@retractionwatch.com.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: How to kill zombie citations; wanted: 6,000 new journals; does peer review matter anymore?”

  1. I am a faithful retractionwatch.com reader and I would like to know why there is no coverage whatsoever of the Catherine Jessus affair? (https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2018/05/22/integrite-scientifique-a-geometrie-variable_5302602_1650684.html).
    I really would like to know why because the CNRS is really throwing its weight around with 500 signature petitions supporting an author whose support of certain other researchers is suspect…thanks for letting me know.
    sincerely
    David Herz

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.