Weekend reads: A sleuth whose work has led to hundreds of retractions and corrections; an “unethical, risky and misleading” eye study; genetics’ high retraction rate

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 story of how “pure, utter nonsense” appeared in a peer-reviewed journal; a cock and bull story; and an expression of concern for a paper about leeches. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

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 team@retractionwatch.com.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: A sleuth whose work has led to hundreds of retractions and corrections; an “unethical, risky and misleading” eye study; genetics’ high retraction rate”

  1. It would be interested to learn how often retraction of a paper in ‘genetics’ (more specifically, one that also reports new gene sequencing information) results in a ‘hold’ being placed on any linked information also reported in a sequence database, such as GenBank, etc? Afterall, sequence data will find itself in a comparison table, thereby infecting the results and conclusion of any citing paper literally overnight. (Yet a ‘hold’ can be placed on sequence data quickly, innocuously, and without fanfare.) Retraction of any paper takes time and, in my past ORI experience, might be only half the story if gene sequence data is also in question!

  2. When I review, I make two copies of the manuscript file and open both. Then I keep one on the figures and one on the text, and just switch back and forth between the windows as needed. Simple solution.

    1. Fully agree, MM. I also do this when I read the published version, because even with embedded figures, the relevant figure is often not on the same page as the text that describes it.

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Your email address will not be published.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.