Weekend reads: Harvard group’s work under scrutiny; editorial board resigns en masse; a concussion study hits a brick wall

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300. There are more than 39,000 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 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.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Harvard group’s work under scrutiny; editorial board resigns en masse; a concussion study hits a brick wall”

  1. Academics and academia are incredibly important. Their actions often shape society years, decades or even centuries on. Disciplining a system reliant on authority consequent to peer review is vital. ‘Who guards the guardians?’ is the million $ question.

    It’s good to see Retraction Watch doing something towards this end. But the problem is not going to go away without a serious fight, and it is a challenge society cannot afford to ignore or lose.

    1. Authors’ affiliation and authority are essential in publishing papers. The reliability of paper data can be proven from the authors’ track records, affiliations, and authority. It is difficult to understand what is wrong with this academic system.

      1. “The reliability of paper data can be proven from the authors’ track records, affiliations, and authority.”
        “Appeal to authority” is one of the most common logical fallacies researchers consistently commit. The reliability of data can only be determined if the data is disclosed, and the means of obtaining is disclosed in detail. I see so much garbabe that shouldn’t pass peer review published by “highly regarded” authors at “prestigious institutions” that an author’s affiliation and authority mean nothing to me. I don’t intend this as a personal attack. It’s simply a question logical valididty.

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.