Weekend reads: Unprofessional behavior in peer reviews; what to do when you’re wrong; an update on the ‘Space Dentist’

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.

We turned 10 years old on Monday. Here’s a brief history, and 10 takeaways from 10 years.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 30.

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.

7 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Unprofessional behavior in peer reviews; what to do when you’re wrong; an update on the ‘Space Dentist’”

  1. The “unprofessional peer review” paper looks interesting and necessary…..but they have a typo in the abstract. Oof.

    1. If you go through the example, some examples are problems, but some are probably necessary (or, it’s hard to evaluate, without seeing the paper)

      Every comment that mentions needing a fluent English speaker to edit it gets flagged as unprofessional. But if the journal’s language is English and the paper isn’t reasonably parseable, that is a problem. I once spent ~2 hours/page trying to understand a paper back when I was a naive postdoc taking review requests way too seriously – nobody else was going to bother trying to read it if the language wasn’t addressed. You can fiddle with how you want it phrased, but letting some publish an unintelligible paper is doing everyone a disservice.

  2. I enjoy reading the various items on weekend reads. However, there are a number of items that are behind paywalls, This week I found four which I was interested in reading. Perhaps do not put any items that are behind par walls on weekend reads, or at least mark them as such before opening links.

  3. “How do we bring an antiracism framework to scholarly publishing?”

    Not sure this divisive ideology will further science.

      1. If that’s your view, you have clearly not ever listened to any of the people who are opposed to (not offended by) “Anti-racism”.

        I would encourage you to listen to Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, or Thomas Chatterton-Williams (and many others), all of whom agree and convincingly argue that this “anti-racism” movement harms the interest of actually eliminating racism and is destructive to society.

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.