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:
- ‘Tortured phrases’, lost in translation: Sleuths find even more problems at journal that just flagged 400 papers
- Award-winning nursing researcher’s paper retracted for ‘failure to acknowledge the contribution of other researchers and the funding source’
- Two years: That’s how long it took a PLOS journal to flag a paper after a sleuth raised concerns
- Journals retract papers following publication of university investigation by Retraction Watch
- Two Texas studies on COVID-19 retracted because ‘previously approved study protocols appear to violate IRB guidelines around prisoner research’
- When a retraction notice leaves out important details: COVID-19, prisoners, and an IRB
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 147.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- “A former university dean has been found guilty of sending fake threatening letters to herself…”
- A researcher has spent $748,000 suing unsuccessfully for defamation — and disputes another $923,000 in fees. Here’s the cost for the scientist he sued.
- “What is a highly cited paper worth? About £10,000 a year,” says a new study in Scientometrics.
- “We were off by an order of magnitude in the number of retractions we thought there were.” Our Ivan Oransky talks to the Lost in the Stacks podcast.
- “Novel researchers have a lower chance of winning funding.”
- “US grand jury indicts Chinese nationals for cyber-theft of research IP.”
- “Scientific publishers expedite name changes for authors.”
- “Responsible research assessment faces the acid test.”
- “Here 171 academics warn that this new ‘Recognition and appreciation’ will lead to more arbitrariness and less quality…”
- “In other words, there are more women in research because the men die earlier.”
- “More Allegations That EPA Scientists Are Pressured To Alter Reports.”
- “After recall of paper over data manipulation, NCBS storm over charges of ‘harassment.’”
- Fiona Godlee is stepping down after 16 years as editor of the BMJ.
- “We suggest that a reframing of writing for publication as ‘publish and flourish’ can be helpful…” write the authors of a new paper.
- “Plagiarism in the Sacred Sciences: Three Impediments to Institutional Reform.”
- “Reviewing Peer Review.” A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to improve the process.
- “Fear of the academic fake? Journal editorials and the amplification of the ‘predatory publishing’ discourse.”
- “Stuff We’ve Already Done, Now With a Coronavirus Angle Glued Onto It So It Can Be Published Again.”
- “Why Bad Science Is Sometimes More Appealing Than Good Science.”
- “Honorary doctorate revoked over ‘incompatible’ views.”
- “[A] Chicago Crusader freelance writer named Patrick Forrest plagiarized substantial elements from a South Side Weekly article…“
- “JUSTICE LEAGUE Unofficial Motion Comic Adapting Sequel Storyboards CANCELED After Plagiarism Claims.”
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 [email protected].
The legal document posted under “ A researcher has spent $748,000 suing unsuccessfully” is a fascinating read. Carlos Croce’s first legal team billed him for 4500 hours of work at an average rate of $375/hr, and now they’ve sued him for nonpayment which will run up more hours. Croce hired a 2nd team who then hired an expert to decompose and rebut the billings of the first team (which is the posted report) who ends by saying he just received the expert report from the first legal team rebutting his rebuttal and that he will respond with a rebuttal of their rebuttal of his rebuttal. Just watch the meters spin.
A choice quote from the expert report: The first legal team “… failed to apprise Croce of the near certainty that the Statements were not defamatory despite being unwelcome to Croce and he was overwhelmingly likely to lose …” Maybe next time just write a strong letter to the editor.
The economics is fascinating. I would be surprised if he has $748k in assets to pay the lawyers. Now, he is incurring liabilities to another law firm. Who will ultimately get paid, and how much can they realistically expect to receive?
If I am not confusing him with someone else, an article I read a couple of years ago described him as owning a mansion and a collection of old masters painting. If true and if those are not mortgaged, that’s probably significantly more than 748k$ in assets, though probably not enough that the bill would be painless to him.
High Hopes for a New Kind of Gene
Scientists believe that microRNA may lead to breakthroughs in diagnosing and treating cancer
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/high-hopes-for-a-new-kind-of-gene-30445792/
Perhaps Croce’s artistic instincts were accurate. Perhaps forgers took advantage of him. We may find out soon.
Oh, interesting. He could have lots of money from his company, then. The value of his paintings is based on his own evaluation, which may be less than entirely accurate.
Corrigendum. That was $356/hr, on average. Don’t want to get accused of exaggeration and defamation.