Weekend reads: Citation manipulation gone wild; astrology meets research; a classic mistake in a study of free will

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 retraction of a paper that claimed that scientists were suppressing evidence about the risks of cell phones; the retraction of a study by the daughter of an embattled South Korean politician; and 22 retractions for a materials scientist that might be the tip of the iceberg. 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: Citation manipulation gone wild; astrology meets research; a classic mistake in a study of free will”

  1. Re reviewers manipulating citation counts: A number of editors like to send submitted papers to people already in the list of cited papers. I sure hope this number is subtracted before the whistle blows!

    1. They could use it as a red flag to investigate further, and go back to the peer reviews to check whether suggestions were made to cite several papers.

      I myself, as reviewer of a paper, once asked the Editor to check up on the other reviewer, as the six papers (strongly) recommended to be cited were all from the same group and several of those rather irrelevant to the topic. The six proposed papers were formatted in a way that did not allow the Editor to see they were from the same group. I just happened to know some of those papers, and knew they were from the same group.

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Your email address will not be published.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.