Before we current this week’s Weekend Reads, a query: Do you take pleasure in 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 each day work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Here’s what was taking place elsewhere:

• “The response from the NRA (National Rifle Association) was less vitriolic than the response from the True Health Initiative.” An ugly fight in nutrition analysis, uncovered.
• A high-profile journal of finance in China is going through criticism for publishing essays by the son of the editor — a Party official — when he was simply 10 years outdated.
• A prof is charged with “spending $96,000 in federal grant funds at grownup leisure venues and sports activities bars.”
• A “scientist arrested in 2014 for embezzling greater than 34 million yuan (US$four.three million) of analysis funds has been sentenced to 12 years in jail.”
• A professor has admitted to stealing greater than $200,000 in most cancers analysis grant funds.
• “My advisor is an advocate for shooting colors in the sky. His spirit is magical yet perpetual, just like the space.” Really.
• A Scottish bishop is accused of committing plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation.
• “A brand new research has discovered that specialised journals publish extra Nobel-winning physics papers than greater affect journals akin to Science and Nature.”
• Compliance with a 2007 regulation that requires medical trial sponsors to report their outcomes “is poor, and never enhancing.”
• “Further public accountability of the trialists, but also our government organizations, has to happen.” Why do the FDA and NIH let researchers get away with not publishing outcomes?
• “Predatory nursing journals proceed to persist, but fewer might now be in existence.”
• “In short, the most common outcome for those who commit fraud is: a long career.” Our Ivan Oransky contributed a chapter to a brand new e-book, Gaming the Metrics: How the rising reliance on metrics to guage scholarly publications has produced new types of educational fraud and misconduct.
• “Western Australia’s Murdoch University is withdrawing a multi-million-dollar declare filed towards certainly one of its personal teachers for damages attributable to his look on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program final 12 months, simply days after it confirmed it had terminated its contract with a serious recruiter of Indian college students.”
• “Scientific and Academic Integrity in Portugal: A National Enterprise.”
• A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to enhance analysis ethics.”
• “Unprecedented recall of papers from Russian journals should additionally spark broader debate on educational tradition, say analysis integrity students.”
• “Importantly, we present that this overcitation of males and undercitation of girls is pushed largely by the quotation practices of males, and is rising with time regardless of better variety in the academy.”
• “The feminine authorship proportion was 48% (63% for major healthcare and 33% for basic inside drugs, P-value < zero.zero01).”
• A college responds to claims that a paper by certainly one of its analysis teams couldn’t be replicated, however says it has “appointed an external panel to review research conducted by Oona Lönnstedt during her PhD at JCU, to determine whether there has been any research misconduct.”
• “How many image duplications in a paper would be acceptable?” asks Elisabeth Bik.
• “How to deal with educational misconduct amongst China’s high scientists.”
• “If the destiny of genius is self-plagiarism, what likelihood does anybody else have?”
• “Bloomberg has retracted an incorrect article revealed in the present day with the headline ‘Trump’s SALT Cap Fuels a Wealth Exodus From High-Tax States’ as a result of time frames in the Bank of America evaluation on which the story was based mostly have been inaccurate.”
• “Academic journals should change into extra ‘activist’ if they’re to outlive, searching for to ‘change the direction of society’ quite than ‘passively waiting’ for manuscripts, based on the editor-in-chief of The Lancet.”
• “Was the general public re-release of information excerpts from an unpublished manuscript on human germline gene modifying ethically justified?”
• Press launch exaggerations have been much less frequent after a paper on the topic.

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 each day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you possibly can tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e mail us at crew@retractionwatch.com.

Related