Another busy week at Retraction Watch, which kicked off with our announcement that we’re hiring a paid intern. Here’s what was happening elsewhere around the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: Self-plagiarism and moral panic; sexism in science; peer review under scrutiny
Category: studies about peer review
Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper
A new paper in Intelligence is offering some, well, intel into the peer review process at one prestigious neuroscience journal.
The new paper is about another paper, a December 2012 study, “Fractionating Human Intelligence,” published in Neuron by Adam Hampshire and colleagues in December 2012. The Neuron study has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Richard Haier and colleagues write in Intelligence that Continue reading Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper
Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in scientific publishing and related issues: Continue reading Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?
“The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles”
The headline of this post is the title of a fascinating new paper in the Journal of Management suggesting that if the road to publication is paved with good intentions, it may also be paved with bad scientific practice.
Ernest Hugh O’Boyle and colleagues tracked 142 management and applied psychology PhD theses to publication, and looked for various questionable research practices — they abbreviate those “QRPs” — such as deleting or adding data after hypothesis tests, selectively adding or deleting variables, and adding or deleting hypotheses themselves.
Their findings?
Tune into BBC Radio 4 today to hear Ivan talk about latest stem cell controversy, post-publication peer review
Ivan is scheduled to be on Inside Science on BBC Radio 4 at 12:30 p.m. Eastern (1630 UK time) to discuss the latest stem cell controversy, and what it says about the state of post-publication peer review. Continue reading Tune into BBC Radio 4 today to hear Ivan talk about latest stem cell controversy, post-publication peer review
Weekend reads: “Too much success” in psychology, why hoaxes aren’t the real problem in science
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere around the web in science publishing and research integrity news: Continue reading Weekend reads: “Too much success” in psychology, why hoaxes aren’t the real problem in science
Nobel Prize winner calls peer review “very distorted,” “completely corrupt,” and “simply a regression to the mean”
Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.
And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”
In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says: Continue reading Nobel Prize winner calls peer review “very distorted,” “completely corrupt,” and “simply a regression to the mean”
No more scientific Lake Wobegon: After criticism, publisher adds a “reject” option for peer reviewers
If you know Prairie Home Companion, you that that in fictional Lake Wobegon, “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”
That’s a bit like what Harvard’s Nir Eyal found when he was asked to review a paper for Dove Medical Press. Here’s what he saw when he looked at Dove’s peer reviewer form:
Continue reading No more scientific Lake Wobegon: After criticism, publisher adds a “reject” option for peer reviewers
Weekend reads: Waste in research, a praise-worthy swift correction in NEJM, and more
The first full week of 2014 featured a slew of stories and commentary about scientific publishing and related issues. Here’s a sampling: Continue reading Weekend reads: Waste in research, a praise-worthy swift correction in NEJM, and more
Weekend reads: How to be a good peer reviewer, the replication backlash
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a taste of scientific publishing news from elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: How to be a good peer reviewer, the replication backlash