Weekend reads: Stolen identity and peer review; key heart data concealed; psychology’s ‘collective self-deception’

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 claiming a link between the HPV vaccine and lower pregnancy rates;
• Whistleblowers in a recent case speaking out;
• Two expressions of concern for a Cambridge researcher;
• The retraction of a paper on creativity for duplication.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• A scientist realizes his identity has been stolen for peer review. Looks like fake peer review — which we’ve been writing about for years — is still alive and well in some quarters.
• The European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) has withdrawn support for its left main coronary artery disease recommendations following an exposé by BBC Newsnight alleging key data from the EXCEL trial were concealed.
• Psychology researcher Tal Yarkoni has accused his field of “collective self-deception.”
• “Raising research quality will require collective action,” argues Marcus Munafo. In an accompanying editorial, Nature says that ” International codes of conduct are important, but grass-roots efforts are the key to embedding research integrity.”
• Why are articles in the arts and humanities retracted?
• “Abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in subscription medical journals have greater completeness of reporting than abstracts published in OA journals.”
• “An insiders’ term for scientific malpractice has worked its way into pop culture. Is that a good thing?” asks Christie Aschwanden.
• “The paper is titled “Blocking the Hype-Hypocrisy-Falsification-Fakery Pathway is Needed to Safeguard Science“, and I don’t see how anyone can really disagree.”
• “However, the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision concluded that the nasal spray study was so deficient that it is indefensible.”
• “Seoul National University (SNU) says it’s looking into plagiarism allegations against former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, involving his master thesis and doctoral dissertation.” Kuk was earlier embroiled in a controversy that led to the retraction of a paper by his daughter.
• “Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful,” and “People of color were also more likely to say the reviews delayed their career advancement.”
• “Chinese universities’ ‘cash for articles’ incentive schemes are garnering mixed responses from humanities and social sciences academics…”
• “A promising field of research on social behaviour struggled after investigators couldn’t repeat key findings. Now researchers are trying to establish what’s worth saving.”
• “An international research organization has taken down an online report that suggested fires burnt more than 1.6 million hectares of land in the country during 2019, 40% more than the government’s own calculations for the same period.”
• “BMJ should retract flawed research paper on chronic fatigue syndrome,” argues David Tuller.
• “U.S. scientists who hide foreign ties should face research misconduct sanctions, panel says.”
• “My bullying boss ground me into depression – and I won’t be the last.”
• “The role of academic journals in adjudicating on fiercely disputed territorial claims in the South China Sea has come under scrutiny as Chinese scholars use maps endorsing China’s position.”
• “Signaling the trustworthiness of science should not be a substitute for direct action against research misconduct.”
• “200 Researchers, 5 Hypotheses, No Consistent Answers: Just how much wisdom is there in the scientific crowd?” asks Christie Aschwanden at WIRED.
• Somehow, figures from experiments in one species looked identical to figures from experiments in another.
• “First and most critically, the statistical analyses reported in the article were inadequate and deviated from the analysis plan in the study’s methods article – an error the authors are aware of and had acknowledged…after some of us identified it in one of their prior publications about this same program…”
• “Miriam Goodman, professor of molecular and cellular physiology, asked whether sexual harassment should be considered a form of research misconduct, notably if the harassment prevents a researcher from accessing equipment or carrying out promising avenues of research.”
• “I don’t know how to respond except to say that their essays are stimulating, like an afternoon in a minefield.” Scott McLemee wonders if plagiarism should be repugnant.
• In a China state media outlet, a scholar calls a journal report on China’s organ donation data “laden with logical and academic fallacies.”
• “The Web of Science has identified a growing number of research articles with 1,000 or more unique authors across more than 100 different countries.”
• “We suggest that, while criticism of the status quo is warranted, a retreat from RCTs is more likely to make things worse for patients and clinicians.”
• The Daily Texan has let a reporter go and retracted 18 of her articles because they could not verify quotations.
• “Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have agreed [on] a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship.”
• “Data Error.” A cartoon from XKCD.
• “Publishers of hundreds of Chinese titles will receive generous government funding as part of a major five-year plan to elevate the country’s publications to among the world’s best.”
• “Last week, local artist and Northeast Lakeview College professor Karl Frey got called to the mat by St. Louis artist Kat Kissick, who alleges that he copied an illustration of hers that went viral in October 2018.”
• “ASAPbio and EMBO Press launch Review Commons, a platform for high-quality, journal-independent peer review of manuscripts from the life sciences before submission to a journal.”
• What happens when you file a public records request for documents from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (home of the FDA and many other agencies)?
• “The head of the education and science committee in Serbia’s parliament has accused the country’s largest university of plagiarising the ethics code of a university in neighbouring Croatia.”

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 [email protected].