Weekend reads: A climate change study correction; predatory journal critic banned from campus; why are publishers “the joint enemy?”

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 the tale of the researcher who pleaded guilty to faking data and then published a paper on diet, the scientist who plagiarized a Harvard grant application, and the first-ever retraction from the U.S. CDC’s flagship journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

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: A climate change study correction; predatory journal critic banned from campus; why are publishers “the joint enemy?””

  1. From the Daniel Ropers article:
    “…with the remaining 99% going on (apart from salaries) other commercial companies including catering, stationery, lab equipment, office infrastructure, connectivity, and increasingly on software licenses.”

    The catering and stationery definitely put a strain on the lab research budget. /s

    1. Procavia, I don’t know about you, but where I am from, pens cost $3000 each. While they may look identical to the pens that come in a pack of 10 for $2, I am assured by Springer Nature Stationery that these are special open access pens and will apply ink to paper no matter whose hand is holding it. I don’t resent their 99% profit margin at all because it shows that they are delivering value to me and allows them to invest in innovations like bluer ink.

  2. My main issue with the Daniel Ropers article is that Ropers is thinking in terms of money and profits, and thereby completely misses the point researchers are trying to make. Most journals charge authors to publish their papers, and again charge institutions and readers to access the published research (there are some open access online journals which are an exception). Researchers want to have their research disseminated and to read the research of others, which can be difficult when institutions typically purchase access to a few publications, not all. This very frustrating considering researchers are already paying publication fees. The For-Profit comment is also completely misunderstood. Catering companies, stationary companies, etc., are selling products. Journals, on the other hand, are selling access to ideas, often ideas that are funded through public grants. By offering up instrumentation companies as a counter argument, Ropers leaves this issue completely unaddressed.

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.