The week at Retraction Watch featured a story of unintended consequences and a broken relationship, and a retraction for a paper that had just about everything wrong with it. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: The ‘Journal Grand Master,’ what drives online attention to studies; a song of replication
Category: weekend reads
Weekend reads: Why a vice-chancellor uses Impact Factors; plagiarizing principals; time to publish less?
The week at Retraction Watch featured the tale of a scientist whose explanations for misconduct kept changing, and revelations in a big legal case involving Duke University. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Why a vice-chancellor uses Impact Factors; plagiarizing principals; time to publish less?
Weekend reads: Science’s citation problem; researcher rehab; a strange new journal
The week at Retraction Watch featured the resignation of a researcher found to have fudged data in a study of Crossfit, and allegations of bullying by a scientist who wouldn’t let a trainee publish a paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Science’s citation problem; researcher rehab; a strange new journal
Weekend reads: A demand for a CRISPR paper retraction; a weak data-sharing policy; can we trust journals?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a study suggesting that 2% of studies in eight medical journals contained suspect data, and the announcement of a retraction on a professor’s blog. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A demand for a CRISPR paper retraction; a weak data-sharing policy; can we trust journals?
Weekend reads: ‘Pile of dung’ republished; Diverging views on publishing negative results; Economists share regrets
The week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual warning from the New England Journal of Medicine, and the withdrawal of a paper over a fear of legal threats. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: ‘Pile of dung’ republished; Diverging views on publishing negative results; Economists share regrets
Weekend reads: The editor who’s a dog; the fake author; a monument to peer review
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a much-discussed paper on using blockchain to prevent scientific misconduct, and a researcher who lost nine studies at once from a single journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: The editor who’s a dog; the fake author; a monument to peer review
Weekend reads: A hoax involving a “conceptual penis;” fake reagents; plagiarism irony
The week at Retraction Watch featured a survey of researchers in China with an alarming result, and asked whether philosophy has a plagiarism problem. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A hoax involving a “conceptual penis;” fake reagents; plagiarism irony
Weekend reads: A modern-day witch hunt; overly honest limitations; doing the right thing
The week at Retraction Watch featured the launch of an award for doing the right thing, and a hijacked journal getting its name back. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A modern-day witch hunt; overly honest limitations; doing the right thing
Weekend reads: A “culture of fear?”; blogs vs. academic papers; neurosurgery retractions on the rise
The week at Retraction Watch featured a new record for most retractions by a single journal, and an impassioned plea from a biostatistician for journals to clean up their act. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A “culture of fear?”; blogs vs. academic papers; neurosurgery retractions on the rise
Weekend reads: Death of a cancer lab; women economists’ papers are more readable; self-correction grows
The week at Retraction Watch featured a study of why researchers commit misconduct, and the story of former Northwestern scientist who sued the university for defamation. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Death of a cancer lab; women economists’ papers are more readable; self-correction grows