Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a taste of scientific publishing news from elsewhere:
- How to become good at peer review: A guide for young scientists from Jennifer Raff
- In December 7’s Weekend Reads, we highlighted a piece by Mina Bissell in Nature arguing that scientists shouldn’t push so hard to replicate findings. Andrew Gelman critiques that piece
- “Do reporters and editors have an obligation to get the story right—even if not the first time?” Pacific Standard piece quotes Adam
- Nathan Myrhvold is challenging a number of papers about dinosaurs, including some from Nature
- “Impact factor is a lousy tool for research assessment and should be abandoned,” says eLife’s Mark Patterson
- A new study reveals the large role that medical communications companies play in scientific publishing
- PubMed Commons is now live to the public