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 university’s findings that dozens of papers by a famous psychologist were “unsafe;” a researcher who will soon be up to 30 retractions; and a psychology professor who took an unusual opportunity to try to undermine her critics. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- A Nature Medicine paper on CRISPR has been retracted within weeks of the journal being notified. A News & Views has also been retracted. Background from STAT.
- “I do think there’s some evidence of scientific misconduct and that some of those papers need to be reviewed and retracted.” A look at concussion data from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
- Meet a bioethicist who’s spurred more than 20 retractions of papers about kidney transplants in China.
- “Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript.”
- “We should celebrate, rather than attack, those who, in good faith, change their position based on new scientific data.”
- “An honorary ambassadorship given to the first lady of Zimbabwe by the Harvard Global Health Catalyst group has been withdrawn following sharp criticism from former US diplomats.”
- “How might an institution repair a tarnished reputation? And, given the reality of fraudulent publishers and their deceptive practices, will institutions consider more strongly guiding author choice of publishing venue in order to protect institutional reputation?”
- “At Faisalabad’s Government College University, a plagiarism scandal involving the controller of examination has hammered the academic institution’s credibility.”
- A “study sparked a massive response that has already been covered on Retraction Watch, although it is not yet retracted from the literature.”
- “How can we expect academic originality from students if we don’t uphold it?” Plagiarism Today reflects on a case.
- “‘Sci-fi makes you stupid’ study refuted by scientists behind original research.”
- “Pirate website Sci-Hub is making the world’s academic research free to all. Some call her a hero. Others disagree.”
- Scientific sleuth Carol Nickerson “put her 10,000 hours into getting the details right. And she deserves our thanks for that.”
- “Twenty percent of secondary publications of randomized controlled trials of drugs did not provide new results relative to the primary publication.”
- “Basic Statistical Errors Are Common in Canadian Psychology Journals…But the Computer Programs That Detect Them Are Far From Perfect.”
- “The replication crisis in science has led to widespread efforts to improve the reliability of research findings, but comparatively little attention has been devoted to the validity of inferences based on those findings.”
- “What fake science journals may do to your health.” Tom Spears on a talk by Kelly Cobey.
- “By the time those results get published, the study is in a sense old news. It looks back at the long story of a scientific discovery, like peering at ancient starlight through the barrel of a telescope.”
- “Soon after, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) representing indigenous minorities in Southern Africa took issue with the consent procedures used to gather the data and wrote to Nature’s editors accusing the paper’s authors of ‘absolute arrogance, ignorance, and cultural myopia.’”
- “Everyone had advice for me, most of which boiled down to publishing more. And so I did.”
- “NIH funding disparity between black and white scientists partly driven by research topic.”
- “Five Easy Ways To Make Your Research More Reproducible.”
- An attorney who sued Quackwatch’s Stephen Barrett has to pay Barrett’s lawyers $10,000 for “vague and implausible allegations which he had to have known were based on no more than speculation.”
- “Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct.”
- A profile of John Carlisle, an anesthetist whose name will be familiar to Retraction Watch readers because of his work fighting fraud.
- “First, as currently practiced, research ethics has become for some a ‘tick box’ exercise to get over the ‘hurdle’ of ethics approval.” A way forward.
- JAMA has retracted and replaced a study on COPD.
- “An inquiry into the misuse of funds at Tallinn University of Technology (Taltech) has found violations of the university’s rules.”
- Having an article on physics published while in high school is impressive. Having it retracted for a co-author’s sins? Less so.
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].