The week at Retraction Watch featured an imposter editor and an author who threatened to sue a journal if it didn’t reverse a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Another autism-vaccine fraud movie?; zombie papers; herbicide-cancer report taken down
Author: Ivan Oransky
College retracts press release about sociologist reviewing manuscript
The Pennsylvania College of Technology, aka Penn College, has retracted a press release about a sociologist there reviewing a manuscript.
Now, although we’ve covered a few retracted press releases, we don’t typically write about such events. This one, however, struck us as odd: Is reviewing a paper really the bar for sending out a press release? What if every university did that every time one of their faculty was asked to review?
The May 2 press release, issued by Penn State, of which Penn College is a part, begins: Continue reading College retracts press release about sociologist reviewing manuscript
Weekend reads: Research parasite awards; money-back research guarantees; Sci-Hub takes over the world
This week at Retraction Watch featured a confession about research misconduct, and a debate over whether a paper should have been retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Research parasite awards; money-back research guarantees; Sci-Hub takes over the world
Why that Evolution paper should never have been retracted: A reviewer speaks out
Earlier this week, we covered the case of a retraction that happened against one of the author’s wishes. That’s not all that unusual. What was unusual in this story, however, is that the author who objected to the retraction had published a well-considered paper in which she identified an error in the original work, and corrected it. That led many scientists on Twitter and elsewhere to ask: Doesn’t a retraction send the wrong message? Don’t we want researchers to correct and update their work?
One of the people asking those questions was Ben Ashby, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter in the UK — who, it turns out, reviewed the corrective paper. Here, we present his thoughts: Continue reading Why that Evolution paper should never have been retracted: A reviewer speaks out
Weekend reads: Peer review, troubled from the start; how to survive as a whistle-blower
The week at Retraction Watch featured news that one in 25 papers in a massive screen includes inappropriate image manipulation, and of the eighth and ninth retractions for a neuroscience team. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Peer review, troubled from the start; how to survive as a whistle-blower
Weekend reads: PubPeer = vigilantes?; why journals cost what they do; who publishes most
The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction from Nature, and a discussion of what it means to be an author on a paper with thousands of them. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: PubPeer = vigilantes?; why journals cost what they do; who publishes most
Weekend reads: Disney retraction request; NEJM under fire; how to fight unfavorable reviews
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a hoax article from a philosophy journal and an image in a paper that looked familiar because it was from a catalog. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Disney retraction request; NEJM under fire; how to fight unfavorable reviews
Weekend reads: Calls for retraction a bad idea?; is scientific fraud a crime?
This week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual excuse for missing data, and a guilty plea in court for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Calls for retraction a bad idea?; is scientific fraud a crime?
Tribeca Film Festival pulls Wakefield vaccine film from schedule
This isn’t a scientific paper being retracted, but given the subject, and that we led Weekend Reads with it this morning, we think it merits a post: A film by Andrew Wakefield, infamous for the now-retracted paper he co-authored in The Lancet linking autism and vaccines, has been withdrawn from the prestigious Tribeca Film Festival.
The announcement of the Tribeca lineup, which included the film, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” earlier this week was met with surprise and objections. As of yesterday, however, festival co-founder Robert De Niro defended the screening, saying he and his wife, who have a child with autism, thought it was “critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined.”
De Niro has apparently changed his mind. As per Jezebel, here is De Niro’s statement from this afternoon (Saturday): Continue reading Tribeca Film Festival pulls Wakefield vaccine film from schedule
Weekend reads: Fraudster rises again as filmmaker; Elsevier, open access publisher?; unethical ethics research
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on the potential dangers of Wi-Fi, and our 3,000th post. Also, have you taken our survey? Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Fraudster rises again as filmmaker; Elsevier, open access publisher?; unethical ethics research