Weekend reads: How to squander a $10 million grant; paid to publish; funding lotteries

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.

2 thoughts on “Weekend reads: How to squander a $10 million grant; paid to publish; funding lotteries”

  1. “Do Top Economics Journals Hold Female-Authored Papers to Higher Standards?”
    When women are cited less then men is is proof of a bias against women, or an outright conspiracy. When women are cited more than men it is proof of … a bias against women, or an outright conspiracy.
    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  2. What is up with that James G. Martin center site and the article linked here (retractions up 900%)?

    Reading through it the worst of the worst in science is cited by this guy and while I do believe most of it, has anyone checked who the author is?
    It says in his bio he is Chief Scientific Officer of EvolvingFX but if you look that up all you get is his name again and some very questionable research papers on how sugar is not responsible for obesity and diabetes. Can this article be trusted?

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Your email address will not be published.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.