Search Results for: randomized

Weekend reads: Coronavirus meets scientific publishing; publish or perish loses in court; retractions in cancer research

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. Sending thoughts to our readers and wishing them the best in this uncertain time. The week … Continue reading Weekend reads: Coronavirus meets scientific publishing; publish or perish loses in court; retractions in cancer research

Frustrated by a university’s lack of action, a journal retracts

Expression of concern, meet expression of frustration. Eight months ago, in the wake of skepticism about the data in a 2017 paper it had published, the Obstetrics & Gynecology issued an EoC about the article. At the time, the journal, an official title of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said it had contacted … Continue reading Frustrated by a university’s lack of action, a journal retracts

Weekend reads: An ugly fight in nutrition research; embezzling scientists; eyebrow-raising papers in China

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 new member of the 100-retraction club; A reviewer caught … Continue reading Weekend reads: An ugly fight in nutrition research; embezzling scientists; eyebrow-raising papers in China

Weekend reads: Stolen identity and peer review; key heart data concealed; psychology’s ‘collective self-deception’

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: The retraction of a paper claiming a link between the … Continue reading Weekend reads: Stolen identity and peer review; key heart data concealed; psychology’s ‘collective self-deception’

Authors retract two studies on high blood pressure and supplements after realizing they’d made a common error

A group of researchers from Iran, Italy and the UK have retracted two meta-analyses on supplements and high blood pressure after making what a statistics expert calls a common error. Both papers were originally published in the Journal of Human Hypertension. Here’s the retraction notice for “Elevated blood pressure reduction after α-lipoic acid supplementation: a … Continue reading Authors retract two studies on high blood pressure and supplements after realizing they’d made a common error

Weekend reads: Disgraced surgeon earns prison sentence; politicians and plagiarism; parents who help their kids cheat

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 political science professor who is now up to eight … Continue reading Weekend reads: Disgraced surgeon earns prison sentence; politicians and plagiarism; parents who help their kids cheat

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

“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 … Continue reading “I decline to respond” but “take this history to undermine”

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

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 case of doing the right thing in autism research; … Continue reading Weekend reads: The need for more honesty in science; a fight between authors of a GM mosquito paper; faked academic CVs

“Questioned as implausible:” Journal retracts paper because a researcher claimed to perform a large clinical trial single-handedly

Is it possible for just one researcher to perform a clinical trial of more than 200 participants? According to the editorial board of the European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, an Elsevier title, the answer would seem to be no. The journal has decided to retract a 2016 paper in which the … Continue reading “Questioned as implausible:” Journal retracts paper because a researcher claimed to perform a large clinical trial single-handedly