The week at Retraction Watch featured doubts about the effects of oxytocin, aka the “love hormone,” and a report on how common reference errors are. Here’s what was happening elsewhere, with apologies for the later-than-usual posting: Continue reading Weekend reads: Questions about NIH success story; do Nobels need a reset?; coercing PhD graduates
Author: Ivan Oransky
Weekend reads: Data sharing fees block access; Machiavellianism and gossip in science; “power pose” redux
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at where retractions for fake peer review come from, and an eyebrow-raising plan that has a journal charging would-be whistleblowers a fee. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Data sharing fees block access; Machiavellianism and gossip in science; “power pose” redux
MEDLINE/PubMed will stop identifying partial retractions. Here’s why.
Retraction Watch readers may be familiar with partial retractions. They’re rare, and not always appreciated: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) says that “they’re not helpful because they make it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and which parts may be relied upon.”
Today, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), which runs MEDLINE/PubMed, announced that the vast database of scholarly literature abstracts is no longer going to identify partial retractions.
We spoke to NLM’s David Gillikin about the change: Continue reading MEDLINE/PubMed will stop identifying partial retractions. Here’s why.
Weekend reads: World’s most prolific peer reviewer; replication backlash carries on; controversial PACE study re-analyzed
The week at Retraction Watch featured news of a fine for a doctor who took part in a controversial fake trial, and a likely unprecedented call for retraction by the U.S. FDA commissioner. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: World’s most prolific peer reviewer; replication backlash carries on; controversial PACE study re-analyzed
Weekend reads: How to create tabloid science headlines; sugar industry buys research; the citation black market
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at whether we have an epidemic of flawed meta-analyses, and the story of a strange case involving climate research and pseudonyms. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: How to create tabloid science headlines; sugar industry buys research; the citation black market
Patients Like Me privacy breach complaint sinks paper
A journal has removed a paper after realizing it contained a verbatim quote from a patient that could reveal the patient’s identity. Reposting as our subscription software appears to be acting up again. Read the whole post here.
Ioannidis: We have “massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses”
Reposting this as our email alerts seem to be down again. Read full post here.
A significant cardiology retraction; second retraction from Case Western biologist; and more you may have missed
A number of readers contacted us last week to let us know that their email alerts had stopped arriving. We’ve now fixed that problem, which had to do with a software update. With apologies for the technical glitch, here’s a roundup (from a Friday post, which wasn’t delivered by email) of posts for which emails didn’t go out, in case you missed them: Continue reading A significant cardiology retraction; second retraction from Case Western biologist; and more you may have missed
Weekend reads: Macchiarini guilty of misconduct; controversial PACE data to be released; gender bias at conferences
This week at Retraction Watch featured the return of a notorious fraudster, and plagiarism of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Macchiarini guilty of misconduct; controversial PACE data to be released; gender bias at conferences
Scientists investigated for misconduct lose appeal in suit against Harvard. Lawyers explain what it means.
Retraction Watch readers may recall the case of Piero Anversa and Annarosa Leri, both formerly of Harvard and the Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston. The pair — which has had their work subjected to a retraction, expression of concern, and correction — sued their former employers in 2014 for costing them job offers after the institutions notified journals, triggering notices. A judge dismissed the case a year ago, saying that Anversa and Leri had to try other administrative remedies before bringing suit.
But Anversa and Leri appealed, and last week, a court denied that appeal. (See the judge’s decision — which begins by quoting Ecclesiastes and includes the delicious word “gallimaufry” — here.) We spoke by email to two attorneys — Richard Goldstein, who represented the scientist in Bois v. HHS, the first case to overturn a funding ban by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and Paul Thaler, who has represented scientists involved in misconduct proceedings for more than 25 years — about the case, and what it could mean for similar lawsuits.
Retraction Watch: The decision seems to stop Anversa and Leri from continuing their suit against Harvard and the Brigham, but also acknowledges some of the scientists’ concerns as legitimate. How would you summarize the findings and their implications? Continue reading Scientists investigated for misconduct lose appeal in suit against Harvard. Lawyers explain what it means.