Search Results for: doing the right thing

“It’s been three tough years:” Macchiarini whistleblower cleared of previous charges

Karl-Henrik Grinnemo was worried. The doctor and clinical researcher at the Karolinska Institute was working with a high-profile surgeon who was performing a potentially life-saving procedure on patients, but Grinnemo saw that the patients weren’t doing very well. So in 2013, Grinnemo and three other doctors raised concerns about the work of Paolo Macchiarini. The … Continue reading “It’s been three tough years:” Macchiarini whistleblower cleared of previous charges

They agreed to listen to a complaint about a paper. Then the harassment began.

We receive our fair share of tips, and most are well-intentioned attempts to clean up the scientific literature. However, sometimes would-be critics can veer into personal attacks. As chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics, Virginia Barbour has seen a lot. But nothing quite prepared her for being cyberbullied by someone the organisation had agreed to … Continue reading They agreed to listen to a complaint about a paper. Then the harassment began.

Weekend reads: Investigations need sunlight; should we name fraudster names?; how to kill predatory journals

The week at Retraction Watch featured a lawsuit threat following criticism of a popular education program, and the new editor of PLOS ONE’s explanation of why submissions are down. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

“Hindsight’s a bitch:” Colleagues dissect painful retraction

Two blog posts are shining additional light on a recent retraction that included some unanswered questions — namely, the identity of the researcher who admitted to manipulating the results. To recap: Psychological Science recently announced it was retracting a paper about the relationship between the words you use and your mood after a graduate student tampered … Continue reading “Hindsight’s a bitch:” Colleagues dissect painful retraction

Got “significosis?” Here are the five diseases of academic publishing

John Antonakis is psychologist by training, but his research has run the gamut from showing kids accurately predict election outcomes just by looking at candidates’ faces to teaching charisma to people in leadership positions. Now, as the newly appointed editor of The Leadership Quarterly, he’s tackling problems in academic publishing. But his approach is somewhat … Continue reading Got “significosis?” Here are the five diseases of academic publishing

“Social science isn’t definitive like chemistry:” Embattled food researcher defends his work

It’s been a busy few months for Brian Wansink, a prominent food researcher at Cornell University. A blog post he wrote in November prompted a huge backlash from readers who accused him of using problematic research methods to produce questionable data, and a group of researchers suggested four of his papers contained 150 inconsistencies. The scientist has … Continue reading “Social science isn’t definitive like chemistry:” Embattled food researcher defends his work

Why traditional statistics are often “counterproductive to research the human sciences”

Doing research is hard. Getting statistically significant results is hard. Making sure the results you obtain reflect reality is even harder. In this week’s Science, Eric Loken at the University of Connecticut and Andrew Gelman at Columbia University debunk some common myths about the use of statistics in research — and argue that, in many … Continue reading Why traditional statistics are often “counterproductive to research the human sciences”

Whistleblower gets court backing in defamation case — but at a cost

It’s been a long and winding road for a whistleblower at Indiana University, South Bend. After Mark Fox, a professor of management and entrepreneurship accused two business professors of plagiarism in 2012, a university investigation found one of the two men — Douglas Agbetsiafa, the former chair of the economics department — guilty of plagiarism, and … Continue reading Whistleblower gets court backing in defamation case — but at a cost

Backlash prompts prominent nutrition researcher to reanalyze multiple papers

To Brian Wansink of Cornell University, a blog post he wrote in November, 2016, was a meant as a lesson in productivity: A graduate student who was willing to embrace every research opportunity submitted five papers within six months of arriving to his lab, while a postdoc who declined two chances to analyze a data set … Continue reading Backlash prompts prominent nutrition researcher to reanalyze multiple papers

Do you calculate if you should accept an invite to peer review? Please stop, say journal editors

Scientists are always pressed for time; still, Raphael Didham of the University Western Australia was surprised when he fell upon a group of early career scientists using a spreadsheet formula to calculate whether one was obligated to accept an invitation to review a paper, based on how many manuscripts he’d submitted for review. “I recall … Continue reading Do you calculate if you should accept an invite to peer review? Please stop, say journal editors