Weekend reads: Questions about Russian COVID-19 vaccine data; a p-value pledge; why one author removed her name from a paper

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:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 32.

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.

4 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Questions about Russian COVID-19 vaccine data; a p-value pledge; why one author removed her name from a paper”

  1. “About one in 20 Australian ecology academics “have had their work ‘unduly modified’ by employers, a study suggests.” ”

    Anyone have a non-paywalled source of this study? Thanks in advance.

  2. RE: culture of failure
    Philosophically, that makes great sense and I agree. Practically, failure is very difficult to prove. Here’s a devil’s advocate scenario: take the hypothesis X affects Y. How many conditions and how many experimental approaches must one try before definitively saying it doesn’t? If you’re interested in what affects Y, the most efficient way to approach it is not to definitively, publishably (whatever that means) nail down whether or not X does, but to screen the whole alphabet in a few carefully chosen assays, and follow up on whatever you find DOES affect Y.

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Your email address will not be published.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.