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 demand from CrossFit; a “case of good science” in a Nature retraction; and another Forensics Friday, in which you can test your sleuthing skills. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- “This is unfortunately a classic story of how much falls through the cracks in scientific literature.” (inewsource)
- “But ethicists are concerned that CancerLinQ is allowing companies to sell access to the data after they have been stripped of patient identifiers, without asking for patients’ permission.”
- “Today, IEEE sent an email to its editors, saying “we cannot use colleagues from Huawei as reviewers or Editors for the peer-review process of our journals,” because the US government has put Huawei on its BIS list.”
- Japan’s National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center says it “has found 158 cases of research that was conducted in violation of the country’s ethical standards.”
- It was bound to happen sometime: After more than 4,700 posts, Retraction Watch has had to make a retraction of its own.
- Rethinking impact factors: “We need a broader, more-transparent suite of metrics to improve science publishing, say Paul Wouters, colleagues and co-signatories” in Nature.
- A new “article looks at the statistics of retractions [in the chemical sciences], their distribution per country, and the occurrence of multiple retractions.” (François-Xavier Coudert, Chemistry of Materials)
- “A quick introduction to anchoring, or, why I am still trying to get Nature Biotechnology to correct the Evans et al. paper more than one year later.” (Meghan Duffy, Dynamic Ecology)
- “The case of a Caltech scholar who claimed he was fired for whistleblowing, is currently underway in Los Angeles County Superior Court.” (Pasadena News Now)
- A Space Dentist? Scientific sleuth Elisabeth Bik has a new blog, and Balwant Rai is one of her first subjects.
- “A British professor who has claimed that aluminium in vaccines is linked to autism has raised more than £22,000 to support his work through a Keele University online donations portal, the Guardian can reveal.”
- “In allegations that were widely seen online, he said the university had set a quota for the number of students to fail certain classes, had made unethical partnerships with the technology company Cengage in hopes of winning a grant from it, and had saddled students with unnecessary expenses.”
- A committee in India “has recommended scrapping a rule that requires PhD students to publish articles.”
- “China computer research body cuts ties with IEEE in protest at decision to bar Huawei from peer review.”
- “But when he claimed that 60 per cent of theses (project reports) of Nigerian undergraduates were plagiarised works, the academic community did not appear to be jolted.”
- “In the last few years, I haven’t published in leftist peer review journals,” Duchesne said.
- “But the CBC article fell short by omitting an important component: the many journals that are published right here in Canada, most of which are run as not-for-profits.”
- “Second, the difficulty in seeking private support for the program reflected adverse publicity arising from concerns about the quality of work carried out by a hair analysis laboratory that also carried the Motherisk name.”
- A different version of this headline: In the midst of measles outbreaks, news outlet gives space to disgraced former doctor whose paper on this subject was retracted for false claims and who is trying to raise funds for a film.
- “An Indian student is claiming over $3million in damages and compensation from a university for failing him in his PhD exam, alleging a ‘conspiracy’ to ruin his career.”
- “With 73 problematic papers listed on Pubpeer, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research has a serious problem.”
- “Open access advocates are calling for a globally coordinated approach to ‘scholarly infrastructure’, saying knowledge is trapped behind paywalls and Europe’s Plan S initiative solves only part of the problem.”
- “US corporations are undertaking and publishing less science, suggesting that they place less value on research activities.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.