Weekend reads: Fraud in gaming vs. fraud in science; ‘a scholarly screw-up of biblical proportions’; pregnant male rats

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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 134.

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.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Fraud in gaming vs. fraud in science; ‘a scholarly screw-up of biblical proportions’; pregnant male rats”

  1. For the Atlantic story comparing “peer review” in the gaming vs scientific community, I understand what the author is going for, but the choice of the comparison baffles me:
    – Dream (the player) is immensely popular as well as Minecraft (the game). It’s very disingenuous to compare the amount of attention his speedrun receives to the work of a(n even a well-known) researcher. A more opt comparison may be say, the STAP cell paper.
    – The gaming community gets it wrong all the time, as well [see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Rogers_(gamer)%5D. Its improvement came with the advanced of AI, undoubtable intrinsically linked.
    – Games, even those of the Sandbox genre like Minecraft, operates within a set of rules conducive to sanity checks… real-life does not work this way (unless you are Dr. Bik, of course)!
    Again, I get what the author is going for and I mostly agree with their thesis. The comparison is just… too strange.

    1. Perhaps we should compare the amount of attention that a (cheating) gamer receives to the amount of taxpayer funding a (fraudster) academic receives. Would that be a more interesting comparison?

      Did I misunderstand, or is the second point that science does not operate under “rules conducive to sanity checks”? Surely, this is a misstatement.

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Your email address will not be published.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.