Weekend reads: A call for 400 retractions of papers on organ donors; “citation mania;” AAAS reassessing award for work on herbicide

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 reviewer who told authors to cite him if they wanted their paper accepted; a case of a paper stolen during peer review; and questions about whether retraction notices should credit readers by name. 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 call for 400 retractions of papers on organ donors; “citation mania;” AAAS reassessing award for work on herbicide”

  1. Bitcoin for biology (peer review) has to be one of the world’s least useful ‘innovations’.

    The peer review database would still be controlled by the publisher. The only people trusted to modify that database would still be the publisher. So they could just use a database and cryptographically sign it like software companies sign apps, but then they wouldn’t be able to say they’re using blockchain.

    What a waste of time.

    1. “The peer review database would still be controlled by the publisher. The only people trusted to modify that database would still be the publisher.”

      I don’t think that’s true. According to the article, things like article submissions (controlled by the author) and peer review submissions (controlled by the reviewers) will all be part of the database and timestamped. The authors and reviewers write their information directly to the database.

  2. The investigation of Professor Crawley’s studies in Bristol, England for ethical deficiencies reported in Dr Tuller’s blog is a relatively minor skirmish in the Great War of ME/CFS (meningoencephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome).

    As the parent of a child labelled with ME/CFS, I have tried with little success to follow the scientific studies in this area. The syndrome has had variable diagnostic criteria, appears to depend primarily on self reported symptoms, cannot be recognized by blood tests, biopsy, or autopsy, and has had many suggested interventions which cannot be easily blinded.

    Two main battle groups can however be identified. Some choose to regard this syndrome as primarily psychogenic, and base suggested treatment on studies primarily from England. Perhaps a larger number (at least as judged by the blogosphere) pour scorn on this viewpoint, and hold the hope that one day a physical basis will be found – despite many encouraging studies which have been easily disproved. Many, on both sides, spend inordinate amounts of energy nitpicking studies which favour opposing beliefs.

    My humble suggestion to those who are concerned is that they set up another blog (“The Great War of the 21st Century”) and ban this ridiculous sniping from Retraction Watch.

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.