Weekend reads: Advice from an author with 18 retractions; ‘TripAdvisor for peer review’; theft, indictments, and prison

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads — the first of 2020! — 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.

2 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Advice from an author with 18 retractions; ‘TripAdvisor for peer review’; theft, indictments, and prison”

  1. “Predatory journals and conferences are two sides of the same coin. As here reviewed, their deceptive practices have negative implications for scientists and clinicians, both educational and ethical.”

    As with publishers, “predatory” could be the wrong word for scamferences, where many if not most of the customers know perfectly well that what they’re attending is a fake… but they get a university-sponsored holiday so everyone benefits.

    Predatory conferences are evidently more profitable, so every grifter with a stable of parasitical journals will branch into predatory conferences sooner or later.

  2. I know Dr. Wansink’s name is mud in these parts (and rightfully so), but the framing of this document from him (here and in the earlier tweet) I think might be a little bit unfair. He acknowledges that his retracted studies should not stand and is recommending research directions for others who may wish to take up similar studies to his discredited ones, which would appear to have considerable value to the field if conducted correctly. I think its mostly a good thing that he’s making these recommendations — obviously one can take them with many grains of salt, but there are some good jumping-off points here and it really does appear he’s making a good-faith effort to mitigate some of the damage he’s done to the field by giving background and ideas to others who may take them up under appropriate standards of integrity. He’s certainly not redeeming himself by doing this, but as far as the research goes, it’s a contribution that probably shouldn’t just be summarily pooh-pooh’ed by saying “Dr. Eighteen Retractions has some advice for us,” before examining the actual advice. Others could do these studies, and while his execution was undeniably awful, his ideas aren’t bad.

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.