Weekend reads: “Unfeasibly prolific authors;” why your manuscript will be rejected; is science broken?

The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of yet more fake peer reviews, bringing the retraction total to 250. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• Can researchers publish too often? Liz Wager — a member of the board of directors of The Center For Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit — and colleagues take a fascinating look at “unfeasibly prolific authors.”
• 15 reasons your manuscript won’t get published, from David Phillips. Helen Eassom has eight more.
• Science isn’t broken, says Christie Aschwanden. It’s just really, really hard.
• Volkswagen has spent two years trying to suppress a paper about security issues in cars, according to Bloomberg. More at Mashable.
• The plagiarism euphemism parade continues, we argue in GMS Medizin — Bibliothek — Information. Why can’t journals just use the word?
• “It’s sort of like if you’re doing an archeological dig and you found a tablet with some strange writing on it. I’m sort of the archaeologist who found it,” Republican presidential candidate — and retired neurosurgeon — Ben Carson said this week in response to charges of hypocrisy because he had criticized fetal tissue research while taking part in it.
• Scientific publishing does need a blacklist, says Rick Anderson, and here’s how to do it right.
• “[T]he view of misconduct as being simply the result of aberrant or self-delusional personalities likely underestimates the effect of other important factors and inhibits the development of effective prevention strategies,” writes Stephen George, reviewing a number of high-profile cases.
• Officials are questioning why Unicamp collaborated with a predatory publisher on a conference, Mauricio Tuffani reports (in Portuguese).
• Steve Silberman’s new book, Neurotribes, could force a rewriting of the history of autism, says Elon Green.
• Here’s how to know whether you should believe the latest health study, from Austin Frakt.
• This play features a geneticist waving around copies of Cell and Nature.
• Adam on our “doing the right thing” category, in a profile in Motherboard: “I think this really ultimately gets at why we’re doing what we’re doing. It’s not to point out the ridiculousness of people who screw up, it’s actually to show how science works and can work when it’s working really well.”
• A new review by Charles Gross “considers the recent increase in paper retractions, the role of social media in scientific ethics, several instructional examples of egregious scientific misconduct, and potential methods to reduce research misconduct.”
• Elsevier tells Elena Dragomir that they were “not satisfied with the reviewer report content” from a recent conference, and that “If the Organisers are not forthcoming with a satisfactory response within a reasonable time limit, we will inform the author and will likely take steps to retract the paper.” Stay tuned.
• We’re honored to be in such good company on WIRED’s list of 27 best science feeds.
• “Why edit a journal?” asks Iain Hay, wondering about the place of editors in the world of “academic capitalism.”
• Whose problem is the reproducibility crisis, anyway? asks Doc Becca.
• The government should provide more incentives for replication, we argue in The Wall Street Journal.
• The impact of biomedical research is slipping, according to a study reported on by The Scientist.
• What if we had an election and counted only half the ballots? That’s like only publishing positive results, says Alan Cassels. Related: AllTrials has come to the U.S.
• The August issue of the COPE Digest features a case report on an often vexing subject: Is it ethical to publish different versions of abstracts in different languages?
• There are some strange goings-on at Cureus, according to Jeffrey Beall. We’ve also written about the journal.
• “Journal fees: would you rather pay a little on a bet or a lot on a sure thing?” asks Zen Faulkes.
• “Misadventures and Victories: An Unfiltered Look at Grad School in the Sciences.” Kirk Engelhardt profiles the Bench Warmers Podcast.
• The president of the Global Energy Balance Network, funded by Coca Cola, has asked that a video be removed because he regrets “that a statement I made in this video has been used by some to brand GEBN as a network focusing only on physical activity,”
• Peer review essential for the beginner, from Elisabeth Bik.
• “You just defended your thesis successfully and completed all the requirements to obtain a Ph.D. degree. What will be your next career move?” Tips from Prashant Kamat.
• Gerald Carter has a lot to say about scientific publishing and incentives. A lot. Come for the rant, stay for the too-adorable pictures of baby vampire bats.
• A new Stanford study “shows how to improve students’ critical thinking about scientific evidence,” according to a release.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support 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. Click here to review our Comments Policy.