Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads — the first of 2020! — 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:
- The retraction of a Science paper by a Nobel winner;
- Nine retractions at once for a prominent cancer researcher;
- A journal that topped 100 retractions in 2019;
- Findings of misconduct in a case that also included embezzlement of grant funds.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- Brian Wansink, who has had 18 papers retracted, has advice for how to do research.
- “But a new artificial intelligence system – dubbed a ‘TripAdvisor for peer review’ – may soon be able to test whether the scathing remarks are being handed out fairly or not.”
- A cancer researcher stole samples he planned to take to China to publish the findings under his own name.
- “Korean professors indicted in admissions case tied to politics.” Background here.
- He Jiankui, who claimed to have created the first CRISPR’d babies, has been sentenced to prison by a Chinese court.
- Behold: Authors acknowledge an error, and thank those who brought it to their attention, without any drama. A rare occurrence.
- “We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.”
- “Predatory journals and conferences are two sides of the same coin. As here reviewed, their deceptive practices have negative implications for scientists and clinicians, both educational and ethical.”
- “It had become clear to Ian Chalmers, at least, that in taking on the establishment, Peter Gøtzsche had attracted the wrong crowd.”
- “A toast to the error detectors: Let 2020 be the year in which we value those who ensure that science is self-correcting,” says Simine Vazire.
- So, what did we learn about peer review in 2019? A guided tour of five findings, from Hilda Bastian.
- A professor denies plagiarizing after his school’s bookstore suspends sale of his books.
- India’s University Grants Commission (UGC) “has made a two-credit course compulsory at the PhD level looking at the increasing cases of plagiarism and publication misconducts.”
- A “decision letter for 2019.”
- “One of the questions I am often asked is how the Science journals correct or retract papers.”
- Those takedown requests the American Psychological Association sent authors who host their papers on their own sites? Ignore them, says the APA’s chief publishing officer.
- “Meta-analysis study indicates we publish more positive results.”
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 [email protected].
“Predatory journals and conferences are two sides of the same coin. As here reviewed, their deceptive practices have negative implications for scientists and clinicians, both educational and ethical.”
As with publishers, “predatory” could be the wrong word for scamferences, where many if not most of the customers know perfectly well that what they’re attending is a fake… but they get a university-sponsored holiday so everyone benefits.
Predatory conferences are evidently more profitable, so every grifter with a stable of parasitical journals will branch into predatory conferences sooner or later.
I know Dr. Wansink’s name is mud in these parts (and rightfully so), but the framing of this document from him (here and in the earlier tweet) I think might be a little bit unfair. He acknowledges that his retracted studies should not stand and is recommending research directions for others who may wish to take up similar studies to his discredited ones, which would appear to have considerable value to the field if conducted correctly. I think its mostly a good thing that he’s making these recommendations — obviously one can take them with many grains of salt, but there are some good jumping-off points here and it really does appear he’s making a good-faith effort to mitigate some of the damage he’s done to the field by giving background and ideas to others who may take them up under appropriate standards of integrity. He’s certainly not redeeming himself by doing this, but as far as the research goes, it’s a contribution that probably shouldn’t just be summarily pooh-pooh’ed by saying “Dr. Eighteen Retractions has some advice for us,” before examining the actual advice. Others could do these studies, and while his execution was undeniably awful, his ideas aren’t bad.