The week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the nuances of replication efforts, aka “the replication paradox,” as well as yet another story of fake peer reviews, this time at Hindawi. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured lots of news about exercise. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with Ivan in Seoul speaking on research integrity at the Korean Medical Association conference. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
In response to “an extraordinary outpouring of discussions on open data and its place in scientific publishing” following a February 24 announcement about a new data policy at PLOS, the publisher has apologized and corrected the record. The new policy — which was actually first announced on January 23, as we noted here — had … Continue reading Following criticism, PLOS apologizes, clarifies new data policy
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, featuring lots of snow at HQ and a trip to take part in a conference in Davis, California. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web:
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 … Continue reading Weekend reads: One researcher resents “cyberbullying” while another wishes peer reviewers would spank him
The Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine has retracted a 2013 article by a pair of researchers who’d claimed to find that air traffic controllers suffer poor health from exposure to microwave radiation. But that turns out to have been an, um, flight of fancy. The article, “Adverse health effects of occupational exposure to … Continue reading Journal grounds paper on radiation exposure in air traffic controllers because it was “published inadvertently”
The debate over the retraction of a highly controversial paper on the effects of GMOs on rats continues unabated. This week, Adriane Fugh-Berman and Thomas Sherman wrote on the Hastings Center website that
It’s been another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a sampling of scientific publishing and misconduct news from around the web: