October 2019 – Page 3 – Retraction Watch

We’re phasing out one of our email alerts. Here’s how to keep up with Retraction Watch.

As some Retraction Watch readers have known, we’ve had off-and-on technological issues with the site. At least in some cases, those problems seem to have been due to DDOS attacks. We’ve been taking steps to ensure the site’s reliability, and we’re taking another one.

Since our inception in 2010, we’ve offered a way to receive an email alert about every new post as it is published. We know that for some readers, such alerts are the preferred way to learn of new posts. However, the various ways to do that all create vulnerabilities on the site, which in turn offer bots ways to compromise us.

In 2014, a study claimed high heels made women more attractive. Now it’s been retracted.

Perhaps you saw the headlines back in 2014, ones like “Science Proves It: Men Really Do Find High Heels Sexier,” from TIME.

Or maybe this quote, from the author of a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior, on CNBC:

Weekend reads: A CRISPR retraction; questions about football concussion data; an ethicist who has led to more than 20 retractions

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:

Publisher retracts paper when authors try publishing it again in another of its journals

Pro-tip: If you’re going to try to publish the same paper twice, don’t submit the duplicated version to a journal from the same publisher where you published the original — especially if you plan to monkey with the data.

Well, don’t try to publish the same paper twice, nor monkey with data, period. But you’ll see our point, we hope, when you read this tale.

Journal flags paper on painkiller for misused trial registry record

A pain journal has expressed concern over a 2018 paper by a group of researchers in China after a reader alerted the publication to problems with the article, including previously-reported data and a bogus trial registry record.

The article, “Population pharmacokinetic modeling of flurbiprofen, the active metabolite of flurbiprofen axetil, in Chinese patients with postoperative pain,” appeared in the Journal of Pain Research, a title from Dove Medical Press. The authors are affiliated with several Peking University and Capital Medical University in Beijing.

Here’s the expression of concern:

“I decline to respond” but “take this history to undermine”

There are various ways to respond to criticism of one’s work. There is the “well, that’s not pleasant news, but thank you, I’ll correct that straightaway” approach. There’s the “I guess we’ll correct this but hope no one notices” approach. There’s the “I’m suing you” approach — often followed by “never mind.”

And then there’s the approach taken by Barbara Fredrickson of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Fredrickson is perhaps best known for her work on the “positivity ratio,” around which she has built a significant brand. The idea, in a nutshell, is that you’ll be more successful if you have three positive emotions for every negative one. It is a compelling and bite-sized idea, and has been turned into a book.

Materials scientist will soon be up to 30 retractions

A researcher at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia will soon add three more retractions to his burgeoning count, making 30.

Ali Nazari has lost 27 papers from several journals, as we’ve reported over the past few months. According to an upcoming notice obtained by Retraction Watch, the International Journal of Material Research (IJMR) will be retracting three more:

“Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case

We have a tension about resolving inaccuracies in scientific documents when they’re past a certain age.

Specifically, what should we do with old papers that are shown to be not just wrong, which is a fate that will befall most of them, but seriously misleading, fatally flawed, or overwhelmingly likely to be fabricated, i.e. when they reach the (very high) threshold we set for retraction?

To my way of thinking, there are three components of this:

University finds dozens of papers by late — and controversial — psychologist Hans Eysenck “unsafe”

More than two dozen papers by a controversial psychologist who died in 1997 are “unsafe,” according to a recent report by his former employer obtained by Retraction Watch.

The research has been subject to question for decades, because the findings — including some that “bibliotherapy” could dramatically reduce the risk of dying from cancer — seemed unbelievable.

The report by King’s College London into the work of Hans Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek notes that:

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

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:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: