Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a sampling of items about scientific publishing, research misconduct, and related issues from around the web:
Continue reading Weekend reads: Seralini GMO-rat study retraction aftershocks; NEJM investigates conflicts of interest
Category: studies about retractions
Weekend reads: One researcher resents “cyberbullying” while another wishes peer reviewers would spank him
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was going on around the web in scientific publishing and related issues:
- “The part of our paper that I [Conley] regret is our crazy biological interpretation. I don’t know what I was thinking or why reviewers didn’t spank me on that…” A wonderfully honest quote from a researcher who studies political attitudes. Continue reading Weekend reads: One researcher resents “cyberbullying” while another wishes peer reviewers would spank him
A rating system for retractions? How various journals stack up
Here at Retraction Watch, we judge retraction notices every day. We even have a category called “unhelpful retraction notices.”
But we haven’t systematically analyzed those notices, so lucky for us, a group of academics at Vanderbilt decided to. In a new paper published in a special issue of Publications — an issue whose editor, Grant Steen, put out a call for papers for here on Retraction Watch — Emma Bilbrey, Natalie O’Dell, and Jonathan Creamer explain: Continue reading A rating system for retractions? How various journals stack up
Weekend reads: Trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record; drug company funding and research
There were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado: Continue reading Weekend reads: Trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record; drug company funding and research
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: Most scientific fraudsters keep their jobs, random acts of academic kindness, and more
A bumper crop of material about misconduct, peer review, and related issues came to our attention this week, so without further ado: Continue reading Weekend reads: Most scientific fraudsters keep their jobs, random acts of academic kindness, and more
The top 10 retractions of 2013
No question, 2013 has been a busy year at Retraction Watch. And no wonder: There have been more than 500 retractions in the scientific literature, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. We’ve posted roughly that many times, and had more than five million pageviews (thank you!).
So, to send 2013 off with a bang, Continue reading The top 10 retractions of 2013
Weekend reads: Snarky acknowledgement sections, journal editors on fraud
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, beginning with a story we broke about faked HIV vaccine results that was picked up by the Des Moines Register and other outlets. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: Snarky acknowledgement sections, journal editors on fraud
Does science need a retraction “shame list?”
A pair of engineering researchers has analyzed the work of a handful of prolific scientific fraudsters, and has concluded that science needs a “shame list” to deter future misconduct.
The paper, “Analysis and Implications of Retraction Period and Coauthorship of Fraudulent Publications,” by Jong Yong Abdiel Foo and Xin Ji Alan Tan, of Ngee Ann Polytechnic in Singapore, appeared online last week in Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance.
The authors write that Continue reading Does science need a retraction “shame list?”
Weekend reads: Who plagiarizes most? Why are women cited less often? And more
It’s been another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere around the web in scientific publishing, plagiarism, and retractions: Continue reading Weekend reads: Who plagiarizes most? Why are women cited less often? And more