Search Results for: e cigarettes

Weekend reads: Grad student who alleged discrimination dismissed; academics who play dumb; when papers cite predatory works

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 rare permanent ban on U.S. federal research funding for … Continue reading Weekend reads: Grad student who alleged discrimination dismissed; academics who play dumb; when papers cite predatory works

“Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case

We have a tension about resolving inaccuracies in scientific documents when they’re past a certain age. Specifically, what should we do with old papers that are shown to be not just wrong, which is a fate that will befall most of them, but seriously misleading, fatally flawed, or overwhelmingly likely to be fabricated, i.e. when they … Continue reading “Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case

Weekend reads: Papers from prison; profs’ kids as co-authors; a history journal flap

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at whether scientists in industry or academia admit to more misconduct, another strange publication twist for a vaccine study, and the correction of a study that claimed anti-gay attitudes could take more than a decade off of gay peoples’ lifespans. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts?

Peer reviewers, like authors, are supposed to declare any potential conflicts of interest. But what happens when they don’t? Take this case: In a court transcript from Feb. 23, 2017, Bryan Hardin testified that he was a peer reviewer on a 2016 paper in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which found that asbestos does not increase … Continue reading What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts?

Post you may have missed: E-cigarette debate triggers questions over review process

Our email alert acted up again this morning, so some readers may have missed the first post of the day, about a controversial topic: e-cigarettes. Click here to read “A paper on chemical safety was accepted one day after submission. Was it peer reviewed?” Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. … Continue reading Post you may have missed: E-cigarette debate triggers questions over review process

A paper on chemical safety was accepted one day after submission. Was it peer reviewed?

Some scientists raise their eyebrows when they see a paper was accepted only a day or two after being submitted — which is exactly what happened during an academic debate over a controversial topic: e-cigarettes. In 2015, a group of Harvard researchers published a paper in Environmental Health Perspectives suggesting the flavoring added to e-cigarettes could be … Continue reading A paper on chemical safety was accepted one day after submission. Was it peer reviewed?

NFL and NYT collide: Did studies on concussion rates leave out necessary data?

The National Football League failed to include data from diagnosed concussions in peer-reviewed studies, making the sport look safer than it is, allege the results of an investigation published yesterday in the New York Times. Now, the paper and the NFL are arguing over whether the studies were supposed to include every instance of head injury. … Continue reading NFL and NYT collide: Did studies on concussion rates leave out necessary data?

Weekend reads: Science press releases under fire; a new plagiarism excuse; win $1,000

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of an entire issue of a journal and a renewable energy researcher agree to retract ten papers for recycling, and saw The Australian put us on its list of “30 Most Influential” in higher education for 2016. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: Elsevier mutiny; babies as co-authors; what to do after rejection

This week’s Weekend Reads, which appears below, was preempted yesterday by the news that the Office of Research Integrity had issued a finding of misconduct in the long-running case of Anil Potti. The week also featured news about a child psychiatry trial halted for unexplained reasons, and saw the launch of our new weekly column … Continue reading Weekend reads: Elsevier mutiny; babies as co-authors; what to do after rejection