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 contemplate a tax-deductible donation to assist Weekend Reads, and our every day work? Thanks prematurely.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Here’s what was occurring elsewhere:

• “How to squander a $10 million donation from a dead man.” “An experimental mind remedy blows up two lives.”
• “I am primarily paid for publishing…” Researchers see “reward buildings as competing with—quite than incentivising—broader notions of societal accountability.”
• “A German analysis institute is providing scientists a €1,000 (£847) bonus in the event that they publish null outcomes or a replication research as a part of its bid to reshape tutorial incentives.”
• “They Wanted Research Funding, So They Entered the Lottery.”
• “I requested for professional bono assist for somebody being menaced by antivaxxers and @wolmanj volunteered and wrote a letter and I simply wrote the letter and have dirty myself, partially from sympathetic terror and partially from laughing.”
• “It’s time to be super heroes for scientific truth,” as an alternative of “despairing in regards to the obvious elasticity of inelastic information.”
• From 1970 to 2010, the variety of retractions in biomedical analysis grew 900 %.
• “Like all retractions, there may be certainly a story behind this one.”
• “Popular preprint servers face closure due to cash troubles: Repositories like INA-Rxiv and IndiaRxiv increase regional science, however discovering money to run them is proving tough.”
• “Overall, I believe this paper demonstrates that the analysis literature is a bit an excessive amount of like Sportscenter.”
• “This definition will assist establishments, funders and different stakeholders generate sensible steerage on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.”
• “Do Top Economics Journals Hold Female-Authored Papers to Higher Standards?” The authors “additionally discover that males’s citations rise once they co-author with girls.”
• “Now, for the first time, law journals from the top 16 law schools in the US are led by women,” studies Mihai Andrei in ZME Science.
• “A former administrator on the University of Central Florida stated he misplaced his job after submitting a whistleblower grievance and elevating considerations about discrimination.”
• “The two University of Central Florida professors who have been just lately implicated in an alledged dishonest scandal are preventing again, calling the college’s investigation ‘sloppy and flawed.’”
• “Dozens of legislation professors have protested towards the University of Southern California’s use of peer evaluate feedback on manuscript submissions to reject a tenure utility.”
• What do journal editors consider “self-plagiarism,” aka duplication?
• “Lack of compliance with journal publishing standards, including peer reviewing of articles, leads to the fact that virtually any article can be published.” A have a look at legislation journals in Moldova.
• “In the final 4 many years, journalists discovered to distinguish between science communication and science journalism.”
• “[P]oor statistical practices don’t merely displace good practices, however truly create substantial boundaries to doing issues the precise method…”
• “Honesty in authorship. Who’s on first?”
• “Irreproducibility shouldn’t mechanically be seen as a signal of failure. It will also be a sign that it’s time to rethink our assumptions.”
• A have a look at publishing in catastrophe threat discount.
• “On Wednesday, The Daily printed a satire article on its web site relating to Purdue Pharma and the price of prescribed drugs. The article didn’t meet our requirements and was eliminated lower than three hours after being printed.”
• “How to write a top-notch paper.”
• “Be sure to read the paper…you will be astonished!” In honor of the Oscars, Grumpy Geophysicist seems at what it might be like if geoscience papers got here from Hollywood.

Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to assist our work, comply with 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 group@retractionwatch.com.

Related