Weekend reads: Trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record; drug company funding and research
There were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado:
Search Results for: Nick Brown
Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn
In 2005, Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada published a paper in American Psychologist making a bold and specific claim: …the authors predict that a ratio of positive to negative affect at or above 2.9 will characterize individuals in flourishing mental health. The paper made quite a splash. It has been cited 360 times, according to … Continue reading Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn
Scientific misconduct and sexual harassment: Similar problems with similar solutions?
Today colleges and universities face a crisis of accountability in two domains: scientific misconduct and sexual harassment or assault. Scientific misconduct and sexual harassment/assault are obviously different, but the way they are reported, handled, and play out have many similarities. Michael Chwe at the University of California in Los Angeles has been thinking about this for … Continue reading Scientific misconduct and sexual harassment: Similar problems with similar solutions?
Weekend reads: Science reporter fired; crappiest fraud ever; are journals necessary?
This week at Retraction Watch featured a big new study of retractions, another that looked at scientist productivity over time, and a new statement on how to use p values properly. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates
The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Weekend reads: How to publish in Nature; social media circumvents peer review; impatience leads to fakery
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at why a fraudster’s papers continued to earn citations after he went to prison, and criticism of Science by hundreds of researchers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Weekend reads: Authorship for sale, STAP stem cell scandal finally over?
This was a week of stem cell retractions, fake peer reviews, legal threats, and we announced that we’ve been awarded a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: