The week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: 179 researchers indicted; how to reject a rejection; breaking the law on clinical trial data
Author: Ivan Oransky
Weekend reads: What do PhDs earn?; university refuses to release data; collaboration’s dark side
This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the huge problem of misidentified cell lines, a check-in with a company that retracted a paper as it was about to go public, and Diederik Stapel’s 58th retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: What do PhDs earn?; university refuses to release data; collaboration’s dark side
Weekend reads: Retraction reluctance; worthless papers (and stats); too many PhDs
The week at Retraction Watch featured a new grant to our parent non-profit organization, a retraction from the NEJM, and our first-ever retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Retraction reluctance; worthless papers (and stats); too many PhDs
Helmsley Trust helps Retraction Watch chart its future with new $130,000 grant
We’re very pleased to announce a new grant for $130,000 from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to The Center For Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit organization.
The generous funding from the Trust’s Biomedical Research Infrastructure Program will allow us to work with a consultant to develop operational and sustainability plans for the Center. Over the coming months, we will assess the current unmet needs within the realm of scientific integrity, develop a strategic business plan that targets those unmet needs, and explore opportunities for growth. While grants will remain a critical part of our budget, we hope to Continue reading Helmsley Trust helps Retraction Watch chart its future with new $130,000 grant
This Giving Tuesday, consider supporting Retraction Watch
Benevolent readers: As we’ve noted many times, since August of 2010 when we launched Retraction Watch, you’ve showed us plenty of love, for which we are ever grateful. Your encouragement, story tips, and critiques are what make the site what it is. It’s great to know that we are providing you with a valuable source of information that has helped focus public attention on scientific misconduct and the process of self-correction.
Now, on this Giving Tuesday, we’re hoping some of you will consider making tax-deductible charitable contributions to The Center For Scientific Integrity, the 501(c)3 parent organization of Retraction Watch. Please consider supporting our blog financially by becoming a paying subscriber at a modest level (or, if the spirit moves you, at an immodest level — we’ll take that, too!). Continue reading This Giving Tuesday, consider supporting Retraction Watch
Weekend reads: Criminal charges for plagiarism; NFL scientific interference; the authorship explosion
The week at Retraction Watch featured a move by the Journal of Biological Chemistry that we’re applauding, a retraction by a high-profile nutrition researcher, and an announcement about a new partnership to create a retraction database. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Criminal charges for plagiarism; NFL scientific interference; the authorship explosion
Weekend reads: Papers de-emphasized for funding; reproducibility revolution; reining in fraud in China
The week at Retraction Watch featured a particularly misleading retraction notice, and a university stripping a graduate of her PhD for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Papers de-emphasized for funding; reproducibility revolution; reining in fraud in China
Weekend reads: The end of journals?; Impact Factor for sale; fake peer reviews earn funding bans
This morning, our thoughts are with the people of Paris. The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper claiming dramatically higher rates of sexual trauma among men in the military, and a look at whether gender plays a role in peer review. Also: We’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: The end of journals?; Impact Factor for sale; fake peer reviews earn funding bans
Join our team: Retraction Watch is hiring a second staff writer
Thanks to a generous grant, we’re in the enviable position of being able to add a second staff writer. Which means we’re looking for applicants.
The job is not for the faint of heart. It’s definitely fast-paced; our staff writer will be expected to write an average of two posts per day, and feel comfortable dropping the day’s plan to jump on a breaking story. Our writers also contribute to bigger projects such as the feature we wrote for Nature on fake peer reviews.
We’re looking for Continue reading Join our team: Retraction Watch is hiring a second staff writer
Study claiming dramatically higher rates of male military sexual trauma is retracted
A study that found a 15-fold increase in the rate of sexual trauma among men in the U.S. military — and sparked suggestions of “an epidemic of male-on-male sex crimes” in the military among conservative media outlets — has been retracted because of a flaw in the analysis.
The study, published just last week, appeared in Psychological Services, an American Psychological Association (APA) journal. In an announcement Sunday titled “American Psychological Association Retracts Article Positing Excessively High Rates of Sexual Trauma Among Military Men,” the APA said that “Scholars raised valid concerns regarding the design and statistical analysis which compromise the findings.” Here’s the text: Continue reading Study claiming dramatically higher rates of male military sexual trauma is retracted