an editor wonders whether data exist, ‘how universities cover up scientific fraud,’ detecting paper mills – Retraction Watch
Before we current this week’s Weekend Reads, a query: Do you get pleasure from our weekly roundup? If so, we may actually use your assist. Would you take into account a tax-deductible donation to assist Weekend Reads, and our day by day work? Thanks prematurely.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
Here’s what was occurring elsewhere.
- “Thus, greater than 97% of the 41 manuscripts didn’t current the uncooked data supporting their outcomes when requested by an editor, suggesting a chance that the uncooked data didn’t exist from the start, not less than in some parts of those circumstances.”
- “[N]ot all universities could be trusted to research accusations of fraud, or even to observe their very own misconduct insurance policies.”
- “How can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?”
- “Why We Should Be Talking About Reproducibility — But Not Forget About Fraud.” Our Ivan Oransky’s #AAAS2020 presentation.
- “A regarding fee of questionable analysis practices by colleagues (34.1% to 41.1%) was reported to have impacted ECR profession development.”
- “The University of Central Florida has reversed its resolution to terminate a professor in its Institute for Simulation and Training who was accused of buying and selling a level for grant funding.”
- “It is frequent these days to publish a draft of an article on a preprint server — to put an approximation of a completed article in an archive that the general public can entry and decide. The analysis adviser of a graduate pupil can use this chance for academic functions by assigning that pupil the accountability of “reviewing” that preprint.”
- “There is generally no substitute for reporting and replicating experiments.” Kamran Abbasi describes “dangerous science in a plastic world.”
- “How to bounce again from a bruising peer-review or paper rejection.”
- A professor in Nigeria reveals how a Kenyan lecturer plagiarized her thesis.
- Who cites who? “The greatest quotation relationships between journals additionally replicate among the greatest rivalries,” in line with a brand new evaluation.
- “The Scientific Paper Is Outdated: For the sake of analysis, their careers, and their psychological well being, scientists ought to spend extra time creating software program.”
- In the Arab area, “The proportion of retracted papers to the full variety of printed papers (zero.17%) was increased than the worldwide proportion and was the best for Algeria (1%) and the bottom for Lebanon (zero.03%).”
- “We confirmed that, for the entire interval, research reported in newspapers obtained on common extra citations.”
- “What to do when your grant is rejected: Failed funding functions are inevitable, however perseverance will pay dividends.” (Nature Index)
- “A Controversial Study Claimed To Explain Why Women Don’t Go Into Science And Tech. It Just Got A 1,113-Word Correction.” (BuzzFeed News)
- “Science ought to by no means be on the market.”
- “Journals like us to assume it’s the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval and it simply isn’t.” Our Ivan Oransky on peer assessment.
- “Retractions: the nice, the dangerous, and the ugly. What researchers stand to realize from taking extra care to know errors within the scientific file.”
- “In the publicity ensuing from the allegations, different questions have emerged about Leach’s educational qualifications and his habits within the area.”
- “Journals should assume accountability for making certain that these data are made obtainable and that the mechanism to entry the data be cited in the identical manner that earlier literature reviews are cited.”
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to assist our work, observe us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our day by day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you’ll be able to tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, electronic mail us at email@example.com.