Weekend reads: Prof resigns as student’s suicide is investigated; the ‘Stanford’ mask study that Stanford disowned; indictments and a prison sentence

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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 122.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation 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: Prof resigns as student’s suicide is investigated; the ‘Stanford’ mask study that Stanford disowned; indictments and a prison sentence”

      1. Indeed, it is a watchdog and an ideological one as well given that RW pertains to, and is grounded in, the ideology of the science. But, political? ‘Splain that to me, Lucy!’ Unless, of course, you are willing to concede that one political party is much more sensitive to scientific truth than the other one, in which case the real pathetic entity readily reveals itself.

  1. “15 journals are outsourcing something central to science…the peer-review process.”

    PLoS One is also well known to outsource the earliest stage of peer review to a consultant (https://www.kwfco.com). KWF hires office workers into entry-level jobs in their “Editorial Office Management” service. These poor folks are generally office workers who come from a scholarly publishing background (not a research background), and have no subject knowledge. But these folks act as editor-in-chief at PLoS One, with responsibility to direct manuscripts to academic editors. This commonly results in complete mismatch between the editor’s subject knowledge and the manuscript. It may also account for the uneven (and often very poor) quality of peer review at PLoS One, and may account for some of the many retractions there.

  2. Covid did originated from Wuhan since the early cases was from there. The crimson harvard news is not related to retraction at all. I wonder why this website post that post here.

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.