Weekend reads: Should expertise in COVID-19 modeling justify a reprieve for grant fraud?; bypassing publishing; “a torrent of ‘bad science?'”

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:

• An “expression of concern” — or something very much like it — for a highly influential paper about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
• The eighth retraction for a researcher who sued his university for discrimination.
• The 15th retraction for an author who engaged in fake peer review.
• Some authors unhappy after their retraction count grows to five.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• “In December of last year, she was charged in U.S. District Court with two felonies — one involving falsified information on an annual certification required for an ongoing $40,000 National Science Foundation grant, and the other accusing her of lying to a federal agent that was investigating the falsified information.” Should Eva Lee, a scientist whose COVID-19 models have been highly accurate, get a reprieve?
• On COVID-19, “Belgian researchers chose to bypass all standard science publishing protocols to publish research that has been overhyped and isn’t well understood.”
• Will “the race to uncover the mysteries of the [coronavirus]…lead to a torrent of ‘bad science‘”? Our Ivan Oransky speaks to Kenneth Cukier for The Economist’s Babbage podcast.
• “The new rapid publication model risks errors but being too slow with information sharing is a much bigger risk.” A medical journal launches rapid publishing for coronavirus papers.
• “The NIH has suspended 77 scientists from its peer review system for deciding which grants to fund.”
• Two professors “at North Korea’s prestigious Kim Il Sung University are…under investigation by a school committee for misconduct.”
• “Female scientists allege discrimination, neglect of research on women at NIH’s child health institute.” He has now withdrawn from the new job.
• “Journals publishing clinical research involving the face and neck region need to establish and enforce policies on publishing clinical images.”
• A professor fired after accusations of research misconduct has a lawsuit he filed against the school dismissed.
• “From honest errors to fake news.” “Finding an error in a scientific publication is one thing, correcting it is a totally different world.”
• At George Washington University, “Undergraduates violated plagiarism rules more than graduate students in 2019.”
• “This article has since been retracted because the sources misrepresented their ages to the reporter without her knowledge.” A student newspaper retracts a story about coronavirus.
• The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has a new director of its education and integrity division: Karen Wehner, formerly of Johns Hopkins.

A reminder of a few Retraction Watch appearances in the media during the pandemic:

• “Quick retraction of a faulty coronavirus paper was a good moment for science.” (STAT)
• “The Science of This Pandemic Is Moving at Dangerous Speeds.” (WIRED)
• “Strong caveats are lacking as news stories trumpet preliminary COVID-19 research.” (Health News Review)
• “Science Communications In the Time of Coronavirus.” (On The Media)
• “What do hydroxychloroquine, ibuprofen and blood type have to do with coronavirus? Looking at the COVID-19 myths causing confusion.” (ABC Australia)

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].