Ivan Oransky

In 2014, a study claimed high heels made women more attractive. Now it’s been retracted.

Perhaps you saw the headlines back in 2014, ones like “Science Proves It: Men Really Do Find High Heels Sexier,” from TIME.

Or maybe this quote, from the author of a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior, on CNBC:

Weekend reads: A CRISPR retraction; questions about football concussion data; an ethicist who has led to more than 20 retractions

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured a university’s findings that dozens of papers by a famous psychologist were “unsafe;” a researcher who will soon be up to 30 retractions; and a psychology professor who took an unusual opportunity to try to undermine her critics. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

“I decline to respond” but “take this history to undermine”

There are various ways to respond to criticism of one’s work. There is the “well, that’s not pleasant news, but thank you, I’ll correct that straightaway” approach. There’s the “I guess we’ll correct this but hope no one notices” approach. There’s the “I’m suing you” approach — often followed by “never mind.”

And then there’s the approach taken by Barbara Fredrickson of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Fredrickson is perhaps best known for her work on the “positivity ratio,” around which she has built a significant brand. The idea, in a nutshell, is that you’ll be more successful if you have three positive emotions for every negative one. It is a compelling and bite-sized idea, and has been turned into a book.

Materials scientist will soon be up to 30 retractions

A researcher at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia will soon add three more retractions to his burgeoning count, making 30.

Ali Nazari has lost 27 papers from several journals, as we’ve reported over the past few months. According to an upcoming notice obtained by Retraction Watch, the International Journal of Material Research (IJMR) will be retracting three more:

University finds dozens of papers by late — and controversial — psychologist Hans Eysenck “unsafe”

More than two dozen papers by a controversial psychologist who died in 1997 are “unsafe,” according to a recent report by his former employer obtained by Retraction Watch.

The research has been subject to question for decades, because the findings — including some that “bibliotherapy” could dramatically reduce the risk of dying from cancer — seemed unbelievable.

The report by King’s College London into the work of Hans Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek notes that:

Weekend reads: The need for more honesty in science; a fight between authors of a GM mosquito paper; faked academic CVs

The week at Retraction Watch featured a case of doing the right thing in autism research; two more retractions for a formerly high-profile Harvard stem cell researcher; and the retraction of a paper claiming that a religious upbringing is linked to less generosity. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Authors retract paper claiming religious upbringing is linked to less generosity

Over at Psychology Today, Tyler VanderWeele reports on the case of a paper that earned significant headlines — and has now been retracted:

In 2015, a paper by Jean Decety and co-authors reported that children who were brought up religiously were less generous. The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American. As it turned out, however, the paper by Decety was wrong.

VanderWeele notes that Azim Shariff, of the University of California, Irvine, asked Decety for the data, and

Weekend reads: Jailed for publishing a paper; pushing back on vaping research; “sugar daddy science”

The week at Retraction Watch featured lots of news involving Nature, including the retraction of a paper on ocean warming and the journal’s rescinding of a mentoring award. It also included a sterling example of the post hoc fallacy. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

“Based on the literature, we have no reason not to believe to the authors.”

If you’re a fan of the post hoc fallacy, this post is for you. If not, we hope you’ll bear with us anyway.

In June, we reported on an expression of concern in the Journal of Cell Science for a 2006 paper “several bands…in Fig. 5 look very similar.” At the time, we noted that while the expression of concern claimed that the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the authors’ institution, “does not have a suitable body to investigate this matter,” it in fact does.

After hearing that from us, Sharon Ahmad, the journal’s managing editor, approached Carlos Petrini, the director of bioethics at the ISS, who proceeded to investigate the work. Petrini has now sent us the summary of that investigation, which we’ve made available here.

Weekend reads: Retract papers, win major awards; “citation doping;” authorship abuse

The week at Retraction Watch featured a paper that used a mouse that doesn’t exist; the departure of a Columbia professor after plagiarism findings; and the correction of a paper whose authors claimed that cell phone use was causing people to grow “horns.” Here’s what happening elsewhere:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: