Weekend reads: ‘The science crisis’; Peru president plagiarism probe; does a Nature cover help or hurt citations?

Would you consider a 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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 223. There are more than 33,000 retractions in our database — which powers retraction alerts in EndNoteLibKeyPapers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers?

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 by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal 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: ‘The science crisis’; Peru president plagiarism probe; does a Nature cover help or hurt citations?”

  1. To me at least, the cover vs. citation article is a clear case of correlation being confounded with causation and is bad science.

    I strongly doubt that anybody knows what was on the cover of the issues that include the articles they’re citing.

  2. Your first article links to the Washington Examiner, a conservative “news” site that launders right wing talking points by pretending to be a genuine news source. I would trust nothing that they say about science.

    1. Quote from the article. Note that no sources were cited for this quote.

      “Among the discipline’s gravest failures has been the collapse of implicit bias theory, which holds that closet racists will struggle to pair black and brown faces with words such as “good” in laboratory experiments. An obvious example of pseudo-scientific quackery, IBT was shown, in 2017, to suffer from “low test-retest reliability,” another way of saying that replicating results has proven to be impossible.”

      Also the article includes many right-wing trigger words such as ‘leftist’.

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Your email address will not be published.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.