Weekend reads: Coronavirus meets scientific publishing; publish or perish loses in court; retractions in cancer research

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.

Sending thoughts to our readers and wishing them the best in this uncertain time.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• JAMA sounding the alarm about coronavirus data;
• the retraction of a paper claiming a link between statins and lowered glaucoma risk;
• a journal frustrated by a university’s inaction.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• Coronavirus researchers “were reluctant to share data with others before publication in a prestigious medical journal.”
• Some journals “go down the food chain to people with lesser experience or no experience in coronaviruses.”
• “Will the coronavirus kill off the ‘dinosaur’ world of academic publishing?”
• Egyptian scientists decried data claiming that the number of coronavirus cases in the country exceeds 19,000.
• “Tweets that put people at risk of contracting the COVID-19 coronavirus as it rapidly spreads across the globe are to be removed by Twitter to help the public get accurate information and avoid myths and misinformation.”
• “An adviser to the Hong Kong government has withdrawn a column he co-authored in which he said it was acceptable to refer to the coronavirus as the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ and there was no evidence to support allegations the disease came from the United States.”
• A tribunal orders the University of Technology Sydney “to reinstate an academic it sacked…for failing to publish in top-flight journals.”
• “Journals should also use available on-line databases, such as the Retraction Watch Database to verify that upcoming articles do not cite retracted papers.”
• “How retractions are helping cancer research.” Esther Paniagua at Cancer World looks at trends in oncology.
• “Furthermore, the UK General Medical Council’s own data demonstrates a historic inattentiveness to the ease with which doctors can engage in research misconduct.”
• “When the university told my wife about the sexual-harassment complaints against her, we knew they weren’t true. We had no idea how strange the truth really was.”
• New: The Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies (PREP) “is an online platform contributing to the responsible organisation of editorial procedures by scholarly journals.”
• “It is vital that we speak out now because the unsound findings and claims undermine efforts for effectively addressing the opioid overdose crisis. We are, therefore, calling for the immediate retraction of Alberta’s SCS report.”
• “A barrage of fake responses to her online questionnaire prompted psychologist Melissa Simone to ferret out the culprits.”
• “‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ at the Museum of the Bible are all forgeries.”
• “If ‘Love is Blind’ had been submitted for peer review.”
• “Fired cancer scientist says ‘good people are being crushed’ by overzealous probes into possible Chinese ties.”
• Among young biomedical researchers in Italy, “Some respondents believe that cases of misconduct occur in their workplace (20%–46.2%) and that the integrity of a research is not solely the responsibility of the principal investigator (73.8%).”
• “Online badges don’t motivate researchers to share their data when submitting to a medical journal, the first ever randomized controlled trial on the practice has found.”
• “Despite increasing representation of women in science, gender gaps for publications and citations have continued to widen since the middle of last century.”
• In trials of HPV vaccine, “A non-placebo control may have obscured an accurate assessment of safety and the participant consent process of some trials raises ethical concerns.”
• “Top neuroscientist leaves Mexican university as former trainees allege sexual harassment.”

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].