Weekend reads: Findings linked to $183 million deal questioned; how Jeffrey Epstein’s money blinded scientists; “a scientific Ponzi scheme”

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 a bad trip for some drug researchers; a suspension for an earthquake researcher; and our ninth birthday. 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.

4 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Findings linked to $183 million deal questioned; how Jeffrey Epstein’s money blinded scientists; “a scientific Ponzi scheme””

  1. “Academics should have their university colleagues review their papers before submitting them to journals,” says a Nobelist.
    You need a Nobelist to state the obvious? Is this not bog standard normal procedure? Obviously not.

    1. Having members of the same department review their colleagues’ manuscripts might work in large, diverse departments and/or in those with healthy climates of collegiality. But, given the increasing specialization/compartmentalization of research topics and, in particular, the hypercompetitively toxic environment of some departments, I have to wonder about the practicality of this proposal.

      1. What a sad observation on our centres of higher learning.

        One does not need a specialist to review most papers other than for specific sections. A good scientist can review and discover errors of logic and assumptions, incorrect citations etc outside of their immediate field of speciality.

  2. The flawed reasoning behind the flawed essay titled

    “The Flawed Reasoning Behind the Replication Crisis
    It’s time to change the way uncertainty is quantified.”
    By Aubrey Clayton

    I will point out to Aubrey Clayton that the Duke team that included Anil Potti used Bayesian analysis techniques, yielding multiple retracted papers, a tragically flawed clinical trial, and a trail of irreproducible results and lawsuits.

    Switching statistical paradigms will not stop charlatans from gaming the system and will not solve the replication crisis.

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.