Weekend reads: The need for more honesty in science; a fight between authors of a GM mosquito paper; faked academic CVs

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 case of doing the right thing in autism research; two more retractions for a formerly high-profile Harvard stem cell researcher; and the retraction of a paper claiming that a religious upbringing is linked to less generosity. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• “Simply put, we need more honesty in science.”
• Several co-authors of a paper on genetically modified mosquitoes “have reportedly requested that it be retracted.”
• “Misrepresentation of academic achievements on CVs is a problem.”
• “[A] group advocating a plant-based diet…filed a petition against the journal with the Federal Trade Commission.” But it turns out the lead researcher on the paper didn’t disclose past ties to industry.
• Journal editors “claim the right to be perfectly qualified to make every single decision about every circumstance surrounding a paper up to and including publication, because they are the experts (and, I can assure you, they do not like having their expertise questioned).” After publication is a different story, says James Heathers.
• The National Cancer Institute, which funded a recent study on treating hyperthyroidism, now “claims the [authors] did not have permission to use what it called preliminary data, asked the other journal, Clinical Nuclear Medicine, for a retraction, according to its editor. The NCI, however, denied seeking a retraction.”
• An investigation of a professor’s work found “glaring and occasionally stunning instances of plagiarism.”
• “Many readers…are underprepared to discern that a plagiarizing work has already appeared in print in another language under different authorship,” says one philosopher.
• “How frightening that the scientific literature should be so delicate, so ephemeral.”
• What can scientific authors learn from Cormac McCarthy?
• “Current research in the field of neurology does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility.” Ditto urology. And ditto sports medicine.
• “This error occurred because the case register form the authors used selects the male gender by default, and the researcher who registered these 6 patients did not correctly change it to female.”
• “For now, peer review innovations appear to be restricted to specific niches in academic publishing.”
• “There is a need for a service that can guide us to the papers (and, as a consequence, journals) that we may want to read.”
• “We are all complicit in harassment and abuse,” argues Virginia Valian.
• “Our results suggest that scientific formatting represents a loss of 52 hours, costing the equivalent of US$1,908 per researcher per year. “
• “Results from a mostly European sample (N = 1129) showed that, compared to a control group, whereas trust in past research was reduced when people were informed about the aspects of the replication crisis, trust in future research was maintained except when they were also informed about proposed reforms.”
• A paper “with damning implications” for CRISPR was wrong, the paper’s senior author said.
• “Trust in science increases when scientists and the outlets certifying their work honor science’s norms.”
• “Over 6 years after the publication of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity, nearly half of UK universities are not complying with all its recommendations and do not provide contact details for a staff member with responsibility for RI or an annual statement.”
• “[M]ost researchers have felt pressured by peer reviewers to cite studies in their papers that seem unnecessary.”
• Some authors…”aim at manipulating the publication process to enhance their performance metrics.”
• “We find that a total of 22 out of 49 papers contain demonstrable errors.” A study of research in machine learning.
• A paper “reported that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) supportive of the authors’ main hypotheses were no more likely to be cited, viewed, or discussed than those not supportive of main hypotheses, ostensibly providing reassurance that null findings are of equal public and scientific interest as positive findings. However, key confounders were not considered.”
• Advice from Cell Press peer reviewers on doing better reviews.
• “Study designs that are susceptible to misattributing RTM as intervention effects have been prevalent in nutrition and obesity research.”
• “In this paper, we argue that when allegations of research integrity breaches are corroborated, the institution’s REB should be identified as a party required to receive that information.”
• “As reviewers, we help ensure that high-quality science gets published. We can—and should—do this without forgetting that behind every paper are people who worked hard to put together a manuscript reporting their cherished research.”
• “Real problem, wrong solution: why the [Australian] Nationals shouldn’t politicise the science replication crisis.”
• “A kinder research culture is possible.”
• “About 3% of the 55,600 grants the [U.S. NIH] awarded in 2018 involved at least one researcher reporting such a conflict. But some experts question whether the data are capturing all relevant conflicts.”
• “I will say that, coming into this Functional Ecology initiative, I assumed that the effectiveness of double-blind peer review for addressing issues of gender bias was more supported by data. And what I am learning is that it’s not clear.”

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 [email protected].