Highly cited scientist was manipulating citations; ‘botched and unnecessary’ operations; a flawed coronavirus study – Retraction Watch
Before we current this week’s Weekend Reads, a query: Do you take pleasure in our weekly roundup? If so, we might actually use your assist. Would you take into account a tax-deductible donation to assist Weekend Reads, and our every day work? Thanks upfront.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
Here’s what was occurring elsewhere:
- “[O]ne of the world’s most extremely cited researchers has been faraway from the editorial board of 1 journal and barred as a reviewer for one more, after repeatedly manipulating the peer-review course of…”
- “A tradition of ‘avoidance and denial’ allowed a breast surgeon to carry out botched and pointless operations on a whole bunch of girls, a report has discovered.” The identical surgeon had a paper retracted in 2012 as a result of, amongst different causes, “some sufferers included within the study have been handled by a breast most cancers surgeon at the moment underneath investigation for utilizing a surgical approach not deemed to be finest follow.”
- A study claiming a new coronavirus will be transmitted by individuals with out signs was flawed.
- “This decision, and the weird and circuitous sequence that preceded it, reveals the often-arbitrary nature of the educational publication course of.”
- “Mark Alfano, who holds tutorial posts at Sydney’s Macquarie University and Delft University of Technology within the Netherlands, launched a petition final month that requires the management of the journal Philosophical Psychology to resign, apologise or retract an article written by Nathan Cofnas, a doctoral pupil on the University of Oxford.”
- “I propose that we begin calculating the “Integrity Factor” for journals and maybe this ought to be the variety of retractions in, say, a 5‐ or 10‐yr interval divided by the variety of unique analysis papers printed.” See our commentary right here.
- “Punishing research misconduct.” A new episode of the Everything Hertz podcast.
- “Reviewers ought to cease doing the market’s soiled work: Excessive criticism displays a dearth of analysis funding and house in high journals. But friends needn’t play ball, says an nameless tutorial” writing in Times Higher Education.
- “A former Montana State University assistant professor is interesting to the Montana Supreme Court after a Gallatin County choose dominated towards his lawsuit that accused the college of firing him illegally and damaging his popularity.”
- “What are faux interdisciplinary collaborations and why do they happen?”
- “10 Types of Plagiarism in Research.”
- This week, a firm’s press rep retracted a press launch as a result of it implied that Alicia Keys had one way or the other endorsed their “sustainably sourced, farm-to-consumer hashish.”
- “Should the follow of authors nominating reviewers proceed?”
- “The Royal Academy of Sciences helps Carlos López Otin,” who has had 9 papers retracted.
- “This transfer acknowledges the important thing position that preprints can play at a time when science is transferring swiftly, particularly when fast info sharing and communication amongst researchers, coverage makers, and public well being advocates can save lives.”
- “A rising physique of proof means that analysis misconduct has been rising steadily over the previous few a long time.”
- “What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.”
- “Reports of misconduct are now reaching alarming proportions in Asia, and the negative consequences…are incalculable,” writes Bruce Svare in a analysis paper.
- “A imply and aggressive analysis working tradition threatens the general public’s respect for scientists…”
- “The researchers discovered that ladies have been 21 % much less prone to be invited than males with related scientific experience, seniority and publication metrics.”
- “A feudal method to mental property has turned the academy into a fashionable police state, says Steve Fuller” about plagiarism.
- “What might an editor do when confronted with a potential case of plagiarism?”
- “Beginning this week, authors of latest submissions to Nature will likely be supplied the choice to have nameless referee studies printed, together with their very own responses and rebuttals, as soon as a manuscript is prepared for publication.”
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 every 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.