Weekend reads: Problems with a Science paper, how to cite properly (and improperly)

Another super-busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening in around the web in scientific publishing, misconduct, and related issues:

Derek Lowe takes a look at a paper in Science, and finds an awful lot of problems. Science says it’s looking into the study.
A guide to proper citation — and how to respond to reviewers’ suggestions for references — from the editors of The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters.
A requirement that authors sign over “moral rights” to the Nature Publishing Group is raising the ire of some academics. NPG says it’s “to ensure that the journal and its publisher are free to publish formal corrections or retractions of articles where the integrity of the scientific record may be compromised by the disagreement of authors.”
“High quality scholarship does not depend on obedience to technical rules on referencing,” a sociologist accused of plagiarism tells Times Higher Education.
“I believe we should celebrate failure,” writes Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph Loscalzo. This week, his journal retracted a paper on which he was a co-author.
“The Undead Findings Are Among Us:” Even now that Diederik Stapel has 54 retractions, Rolf Zwaan writes that researchers are still citing him.
Novartis has replaced its top executives in Japan (sub req’d) following misconduct in clinical trials.
A paper “reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions” (sub req’d)
A university claims (nonsensically) that the media invented the concept of “self-plagiarism” (in Dutch)
The Boston Herald picks up the story of a group of men’s health specialists who want a JAMA study retracted. (quotes Ivan)
Former Germany education minister Annette Schavan, who lost her PhD for plagiarism, will no longer fight to get it back, but she was awarded an honorary doctorate yesterday.
There has been some progress in communication between scientists and the public, but problems remain.
What is philosophy of science (and should scientists care)?
PeerJ, where Paul Brookes published a paper on his experiences with Science-Fraud.org, interviews him about the study, which the academic editor called “the most challenging review I have handled in over a decade.”
What we do about junk science? And how do you tell if a study is bogus? (quotes Ivan)
After making just one clinical trial award, an NIH stem cell program has closed.
NRC Handelsblad tells the story of Pankaj Dhonukshe, found to have committed misconduct. (in Dutch)
The Chronicle of Higher Education interviews David Wright, who resigned from the Office of Research Integrity last month in a fiery letter.
How can psychology reduce the number of false positives?
How should cancer researchers deal with irreproducibility?
The retraction of the controversial paper linking climate skepticism to conspiratorial ideation offers lessons about libel laws and publishing, says Kent Anderson.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.

5 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Problems with a Science paper, how to cite properly (and improperly)”

These are all extremely important stories and other blogs and web-sites not referenced will also show great revolution and commotion in science. These are extremey challenging times for scientists, editors and publishers, and so many aspects are changing and evolving faster than many scientists are able to cope with. Scientists can no longer only focus on doing their experiments and publshing their papers. They are the rope in the publishing tug-of-war. The rapid and evolving implementaton of new, and sometimes radical rules, is irreversibly changing the publishing landscape, possibly even destroying it, I believe. Each party is trying to set up something more original than the other, almost in a competitive rage to see who can be most original in the race to adaptation. But surely excessive adaptation, like mutations, can be lethal? The Nature requirements to sign over “moral” rights has got to be the biggest laugh, and stomache ache, of this morning. Once you strip the intellectual, proprietary, economic and then moral / ethical rights from an author, what does that leave you with? A skeleton.