Museum director sues after suspension; Nobelist ’embroiled in research scandal;’ spider biologist lawyers up after retractions – Retraction Watch
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:
- “Michigan State University Museum Director Mark Auslander is suing MSU and three individuals he claims retaliated in opposition to him after he revealed many years of monetary mismanagement.” The story begins right here.
- “A stem cell firm co-founded by the main geneticist Professor Sir Martin Evans carried out illegal medical trials in Greece.”
- “Now, Pruitt acknowledges in a brand new interview lawyer he employed has despatched a number of journal editors and co-authors letters cautioning them about airing this matter on social media and admonishing them to comply with retraction tips set up by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).” A researcher whose work is being questioned by colleagues — and a few of which has been retracted — lawyers up.
- A paper on treating coronavirus with conventional Chinese medication “promised way more than it delivered.”
- A Harvard professor sues the college, “citing a dispute regarding his employment contract” — aka a tenure denial.
- “Wow, that was tough. My dad simply discovered that my lab has run out of research funding,” Dr Saunders wrote.
- “Luckily,” says biotech founder Sarah Richardson of status publishing, “I don’t give a crap about that.”
- “A former West Virginia University professor admitted to a fraud cost…” Lewis was employed by the People’s Republic of China’s “Global Experts 1000 Talents Plan.”
- “Scientists Say Another Panic-Fueling Vaping Study Needs to Be Retracted: A paper that claimed vapes are a gateway to cigarettes relied on defective methodology, specialists say.”
- “Hundreds of scientists who put up their peer-review exercise on the web site Publons say they’ve reviewed papers for journals termed ‘predatory’, an evaluation has discovered.”
- “Equating citations with impression thus underestimates the impression of extremely cited papers. Real quotation practices thus reveal that citations are biased measures of high quality and impression,” argues a brand new preprint.
- “The greatest research is completed not once we faux that we’re completely goal, however once we acknowledge that we aren’t.”
- Why are a whole lot of papers retracted yearly? Our Ivan Oransky talks to BYU Radio.
- Remember, of us — notably journalists protecting journal research — it’s bizarre embargo time season.
- PNAS lifted the embargo early on Friday of final week on a paper as a result of the corresponding creator’s institute posted a press launch days earlier than the embargo was scheduled to raise.
- What is “white hat bias?” David Allison explains.
- “[Q]uality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is inside an identical vary as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit barely decrease on common, supporting the concept preprints must be thought of legitimate scientific contributions.”
- “But for extra regular journals, how toxic is suggesting reviewers?”
- “For three years, a part of DARPA has funded two groups for every undertaking: one for research and one for reproducibility. The funding is paying off.”
- “[T]he total high quality and originality of revealed educational research will be improved by introducing randomness into the peer evaluation course of,” argue two researchers.
- “Imagine your pleasure if you obtain your first e mail inviting you to current your esteemed article in Rome. Is this invitation a dream come true or predatory?”
- “Enforced, structured reporting and processes to evaluate relevance are required to make battle of curiosity disclosures match for objective.”
- “Editor’s notice: Retraction and apology for racist op-ed illustration alternative.”
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 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.