The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates
Author: Ivan Oransky
Weekend reads, part 2: Criminalizing scientific fraud; Nobel Prize folly; boosting impact factor
There were so many items to choose from this week for Weekend Reads — probably because it was Peer Review Week — that we decided to split them into two posts. Here’s part 2: Continue reading Weekend reads, part 2: Criminalizing scientific fraud; Nobel Prize folly; boosting impact factor
Weekend reads, part 1: Editor slams PubPeer; scientific fraud pays off
The week at Retraction Watch featured yet another case of fake peer review, and a court sentence for a Danish researcher found to have committed fraud. Here’s what was happening elsewhere (stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow): Continue reading Weekend reads, part 1: Editor slams PubPeer; scientific fraud pays off
Weekend reads: STAP saga over once and for all?; plagiarizing prof gets tenure
The week at Retraction Watch featured the appeal of a modern-day retraction, and a look at whether a retraction by a Nobel Prize winner should be retracted 50 years later. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: STAP saga over once and for all?; plagiarizing prof gets tenure
Meet the new Retraction Watch researcher, Alison Abritis
Retraction Watch readers, please join us in welcoming the newest member of our staff, Alison Abritis.
To say that Abritis is a good fit for Retraction Watch would be a colossal understatement. Abritis started her PhD in public health at the University of South Florida several years ago, intending to focus on toxicology. But her advisor noticed that every time they met, she would describe problematic papers she was reading. So he suggested that she focus on scientific publishing in her research.
The result was a fascinating dissertation, Continue reading Meet the new Retraction Watch researcher, Alison Abritis
Weekend reads: Country retraction rankings; social psychology department replication rankings
This week at Retraction Watch featured an ironic case of what doesn’t make a journal great, and the retraction of a paper from JAMA. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Country retraction rankings; social psychology department replication rankings
Weekend reads: Backstabbing; plagiarism irony; preprints to the rescue
The week at Retraction Watch featured a call for the retraction of a paper in NEJM, and a withdrawal of a paper because authors couldn’t pay the page charges. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Backstabbing; plagiarism irony; preprints to the rescue
Weekend reads: Journal invents time machine; endless author lists; is nuance overrated?
The week at Retraction Watch featured the unmasking of the people behind PubPeer, and an editor doing the right thing following a high-profile retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Journal invents time machine; endless author lists; is nuance overrated?
“Whoops.” Paper cites retracted gay canvassing paper — but blame me, says journal editor
By now, most Retraction Watch readers are likely familiar with the retraction in May of a much-ballyhooed study in Science on whether gay canvassers could persuade people to agree with same-sex marriage. It turns out that before that retraction appeared, a different study that cited the Science paper made its way online.
Kenneth Zucker, the editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior, which published the study online in February, 2015, decided he had some ‘splaining to do. The article has now been published as the lead paper in the current issue of the journal, which also includes a comment from Zucker. He explains what happened: Continue reading “Whoops.” Paper cites retracted gay canvassing paper — but blame me, says journal editor
PubPeer founders reveal themselves, create foundation
The creators of PubPeer dropped their own anonymity today, as part of an announcement about a new chapter in the life of the post-publication peer review site.
By now, Retraction Watch readers will be familiar with PubPeer.com. Founded in 2012, the commenting site has allowed for robust discussions of scientific papers — which in turn have led to corrections and retractions. (We regularly feature discussions there in our PubPeer Selections feature.) The site has many supporters — including us — but also some critics, one of whom has filed suit against its commenters, arguing anonymous comments cost him a job opportunity. (Late last week, PubPeer learned that a judge had granted them the right to appeal the most recent decision in that case.)
Like most of the commenters on the site, whose careers could be threatened if they were exposed as critics, the founders of the site have until now been anonymous.
Today, however, founders Brandon Stell, George Smith, and Richard Smith unmasked themselves. They are joined on a board of directors by Boris Barbour and Gabor Brasnjo. Stell and Barbour are practicing scientists, while Brasnjo, who trained as a scientist, works as an attorney. Here’s the whole statement, followed by a Q&A with Stell: Continue reading PubPeer founders reveal themselves, create foundation