Weekend reads: What $50 million won’t fix; was a prized research tarantula poached?; “statistical anarchy”

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 “clandestine retraction,” faked data at the University of Washington, and the retraction of yet another paper claiming a link between vaccines and behavioral issues. 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.

2 thoughts on “Weekend reads: What $50 million won’t fix; was a prized research tarantula poached?; “statistical anarchy””

  1. That BMJ Open paper may have found 65 people who published in predatory journals were willing to say that their papers were peer reviewed, but only 20 of those people said they were willing to share the peer reviews. Of those 20, only 1 sent them an actual peer review and 1 of them sent in an author proof.

    Forgive me if I don’t trust the word of these predatory journal authors. I think some open access advocates have taken it personally that predatory journals exist and are associated with open access and will do anything to try and prove that they don’t exist or the problem isn’t as bad as their critics say.

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Your email address will not be published.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.