Weekend reads: Lessons from the downfall of Brian Wansink; “scientific terrorism” redux; why Cochrane booted a member

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 journal reversing three retractions, retractions for “irreconcilable differences,” and an expression of concern for papers whose authors failed to adequately disclose ties to Monsanto. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• Food researcher Brian Wansink’s fall “tells of a system where research is judged not on merit, but on the attention it gets,” (James Hamblin, The Atlantic)
• “Let’s not pretend [the Wansink saga] is an isolated case,” says our Ivan Oransky (Kiera Butler, Mother Jones)
• A physician recently kicked out of Cochrane repeatedly used official letterhead to espouse personal views. (STAT)
•  “A major study questioned the evidence for safe injection sites. It’s now been retracted.” (German Lopez, Vox)
• As The Ohio State University says it is “Making research integrity a priority,” we thought it would be useful to highlight recent cases of misconduct and misconduct allegations there.
• “Regardless of the claims by the author, there seems little doubt that the 2018 study failed to replicate main findings of the 2014 study.” Patrick Markey takes a look at “the failed replication of a retracted study” of shooter video games.
• “Since then, the paper has been cited over 35 times as evidence of the culture’s savagery. But there’s one huge problem: the evidence for it simply doesn’t exist.” (Michelle Starr, Science Alert)
• A researcher who recently resigned from Bristol University amidst a misconduct investigation now has an expression of concern in Science. (Tom Whipple, The Times UK)
• New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) editor in chief Jeffrey Drazen will retire sometime in the coming year, says the journal’s publisher. (press release)
• Peer review, notes Melinda Baldwin, “is much, much younger than we usually assume.” (The Scholarly Kitchen)
• The “expectation that peer review can maintain ‘the integrity of science’s published record’…leads to tensions in the academic debate about the responsibilities and abilities of the peer review system.” (Research Integrity and Peer Review)
• “Officials in countries that are looking for ways to tackle misconduct should pay close attention” to the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity, says Nature.
• Bad science: Cogs in the machine. Jason Hoyt talks to Chris Chambers. (PeerJ)
• “These are the academic equivalent of the e‐mails one receives from the wife of a deceased African prince or oil merchant, who just needs to use your bank account to transfer tens of millions out of the country, of which you will receive a sizeable percentage.” (Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis)
• Will research preprints improve healthcare for patients? A debate. (The BMJ)
• “If we really want transdisciplinary research, we must ditch the ordered listing of authors…” writes Gretchen L. Kiser in Nature.
• “Fraud on this scale is a black book that I never want to open,written in letters that I hope that I will never be able to read.” (Derek Lowe, Chemistry World)
• The “problem” of predatory publishing remains a relatively small one and should not be allowed to defame open access,” argue Tom Olijhoek and Jon Tennant. (LSE Impact Blog)
• “The article contained errors due to a misunderstanding not depending on editorial actions.” Well, that cleared things right up.
• “Researchers should embrace negative results instead of accentuating the positive,” writes Aaron Carroll. (New York Times)
• Current bibliographic databases don’t keep authors from citing retracted studies, according to a new paper. Possible reasons? Coverage, and whether retracted papers are actually marked as retracted. Why one group of authors used our database.
• “Retractions of randomized controlled trial reports can be effective in reducing citations. Other factors, such as the scale of the retractions and media attention, may play a role in the effectiveness of the reduction.” (sub req’d)
• “Three scientists known in their fields in the United States have been forced to resign in ten days after overwhelming revelations about their methods, a sign of the increased vigilance of the scientific community on ethical issues.” (Ivan Couronne, AFP, in French)
• What’s a monoclonal antibody between friends? “The above-referenced article has been voluntarily retracted by the authors who subsequent to publication learned that the patient was taking the medication Ustekinumab at the time of the eruption and not Secukinumab.” (Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Case Reports)
• “China’s military top brass have released research integrity guidelines urging leaders in charge of the country’s defence-related science and technology research to avoid forgery, plagiarism and other wrongdoing.” (Minnie Chan, South China Morning Post)

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 [email protected].