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:

• Legal threats and an alleged poisoning complicate a trial of a tea to treat malaria
• A journal editor breaking protocol to thank an anonymous whistleblower
• Scrutiny of dozens of papers about China’s ethnic minorities, for ethical violations
• A retraction and a retraction request as Twitter users call out sexism, fat-shaming, and racism

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 30.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• “Examples included statements such as: ‘the writing of this paper was atrocious,’ ‘this young lady is lucky to have been mentored by the leading men in the field’, ‘the authors provide us with a nice example what they can, and cannot do, and how they (wrongly) understand nature and ecology,’ and ‘the authors are clearly new to this field and it shows in this work.’” A look at unprofessional behavior in peer review.
• A new survey “draws attention to the ethics of editors altering reviewers’ reports.”
• “[I]f you get something wrong, you need to admit it, learn from the experience, and move on. I was wrong,” says Steven Salzberg.”
• “Which journals care about scientific rigor, and which journals do not give a fork?” Elisabeth Bik gives an update on the “Space Dentist.”
• “The ICMJE policy goes wrong by using the outdated, overly constraining practice of authorship as a vehicle for allocation of credit and responsibility.”
• “[M]aking it mandatory to report research misconduct is too demanding, as this kind of intervention can at times be self-destructive for the researcher reporting the misconduct.”
• “Wine, resveratrol and COVID-19: This is how ‘stupid science’ gets unleashed.”
• “Taiwan’s rampant thesis and dissertation plagiarism has reduced the value of degrees, bringing the academic system’s public credibility to the brink of collapse.”
• “How the COVID-19 crisis has prompted a revolution in scientific publishing.”
• “How do we bring an antiracism framework to scholarly publishing?”
• “South African media outlets often republish science press releases almost verbatim as news without signalling that it wasn’t written by a journalist, a practice that could exacerbate public mistrust in science, a paper has found.”
• “Concerns about a possible spike in unethical research behaviour have been triggered by a major survey of international academics that highlights the heavy toll inflicted on science by recent lockdowns.”
• “How to be an ethical scientist.”
• “Factors influencing the use of hype included authors’ struggle for objectivity, external editorial intervention, linguistic ability and replication of conventionalised discourse.”
• “The authors of a much–critiqued study of the beneficial effects of tweeting on citation and altmetrics speak, finally.”
• Lehigh University has agreed to pay $200,000 to settle allegations related to a former professor’s fraudulent applications for grants from NASA, federal prosecutors said.”
• “This letter serves to retire the American College of Physicians’ (ACP) rapid, living practice points on the use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin for the prophylaxis or treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1, 2) from the living status.”
• “The Italian Journal of Brouhaha:” Elisabeth Bik takes a look at a journal that published a paper on COVID-19 and 5G.
• “Preprints are legitimate research outputs and should be afforded fair credit and attribution in the context of citation practice.” A guide to citing preprints, from ASAPbio.
• “How do academia and society react to erroneous or deceitful claims? The case of retracted articles’ recognition.”
• “The Science Sleuth Holding Fraudulent Research Accountable:” Elisabeth Bik talks to our Ivan Oransky.
• “I was coming across a lot of science that I couldn’t use in my reviews because the studies were badly reported or badly conducted, but people were still advancing their careers off the back of it.”
• “Academic journal reviewer says Hong Kong should be written as ‘Xianggang’ in row over official name.”
• “This article is about a request for a retraction in a situation where there is no verification for — or against — the reason behind the request.”

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].