Weekend reads: Double-dipping with industry funding; a bully is rehired; organized crime scholar charged with money laundering

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:

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, 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: Double-dipping with industry funding; a bully is rehired; organized crime scholar charged with money laundering”

  1. The RW Daily has a Mailchimp subscription option, but it seems Weekend Reads doesn’t? No big, just curious. Thanks for all you do.

    1. That’s correct. We explained why we’ve phased out our per-post email here, and that was the only way to get an email alert for Weekend Reads. You can of course check the site on Saturdays, or if you sign up for the RW Daily, there will be an item about Weekend Reads on Monday mornings — plus you’ll see a lot of the items before they show up in Weekend Reads.

  2. You have dipped your toe into the murky waters of melanoma surgery by indexing an Australian newspaper (“The Age”), which describes retraction of a two recent articles by Dixon et al in the Australian Journal of General Practice. I can only find one notice of retraction which references factual errors found by Professor Thompson, the overall director of recently published Australian guidelines on melanoma management.
    Fair enough – the article or articles have disappeared. I think it is only fair to point out that this subject is quite controversial, and has lead to personal attacks at meetings I have attended. In brief, advocates of a screening technique (sentinel node biopsy) have been disturbed to find that randomized trials fail to find any improved survival – despite post-hoc subgroup analysis of the most egregious kind. Dixon et al may be onto something. A Cochrane review has also pointed this out.

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Your email address will not be published.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.