Story Source

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured a major case of misconduct at The Ohio State University, the retraction of a much-criticized paper claiming to show “off-target” mutations when using CRISPR, and how fallout from a stem cell scandal ensnared a Nobel Prize winner. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• Is a new proposal at the U.S. EPA just a form of “weaponized transparency?” Our Ivan Oransky wonders about EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s intentions. (Lisa Friedman, New York Times)
• Now this is kind of perfect: A new site, Academia Spam, will gather emails from predatory publishers desperately seeking your manuscripts.
• “[N]IH says it has completed re-evaluating 60 applications and has also begun taking disciplinary action against researchers who broke its rules.” (Jeffrey Brainard, Science)
• Gabriel León, a geneticist at the University of Andrés Bello and a co-signer, said that he hoped the journal would retract the paper.” Scientists in Chile are outraged over a study of a tiny mummy. (Carl Zimmer, New York Times)
• “We are the whistle-blowers.” Two researchers who raised the alarm about a much-ballyhooed study of fish and microplastics speak out in Science.
• “Robert Sternberg, editor-in-chief of Perspectives on Psychological Science, published 7 papers in Perspectives on Psychological Science in the last 2 years. The papers contain 351 references; 161 of these references (46%) are self-citations.” (Eiko Fried)
• “Scientists are tasked with helping us understand our world. When the science is right, they help move humanity forward. But what about when science is wrong?” (Ian Sample and Sandra Ferrari, Guardian Science Podcast)
• Scholarly publishers reveal gender pay gaps. (Benedicte Page, The Bookseller)
• “[W]e were surprised at how little attention the issue of correcting the research record was given.” Researchers respond to an article in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
• “[I]s the idea underlying [Paolo] Macchiarini’s work—’seeding’ a scaffold with a patient’s own stem cells, in hopes of regenerating a healthy, functional organ—still worth testing in patients?” (Matt Warren, Science)
• Elijah Lowenstein loves preprints. (Scientific American)
• Journal editors Pasquale Maffia and Roger Watson come in praise of Publons. (Cardiovascular Research, Nurse Author & Editor)
• “A senior member of the academic staff of the University of Malta is being investigated for alleged plagiarism in research work he published recently, the Times of Malta is informed.” (Ivan Camilleri)
• “Following the lecture, students trusted psychological studies slightly less but saw greater similarities between psychology and natural science fields.” How — if at all — should professors talk about the “replication crisis?” (Teaching of Psychology)
• The U.S. Congress has ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture “to restore transparency, completeness, to animal welfare reports.” (Meredith Wadman, Science)
• Nine Iranian “hackers stole 31.5 terabytes of documents and data, including scientific research, journals, and dissertations,” an indictment filed by a U.S. federal grant jury alleges. (Jon Cohen, Science)
• Researchers in the UK and U.S. are less likely to share research data, according to a new report. (Simon Baker, Times Higher Education)
• “Can You Criticize Science (or Do Science) Without Looking Like an Obsessive? Maybe Not.” (Andrew Gelman, Slate)
• “[A]lthough misconduct exists in science, the existence of PubPeer should mitigate the impact of ‘’fake news,’” writes C. Forest. (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health)
• “What is the impact of retractions in science?” Our Ivan Oransky talks to Elephant in the Lab.
• A university in South Africa is “accused of dragging its feet in acting against plagiarism claims involving one of its researchers.” (Msindisi Fengu, City Press)
• “Well, sometimes Science corrects itself.” Steven Salzberg notes that a group of CRISPR critics have reversed themselves. (Forbes)
• “No one taught me what steps you are supposed to take when you have been plagiarized.” And Irène Mathieu could really use that information right now. (Council on Communications and Media Blog)
• “Scientists in Africa Wonder if There’s Bias Against Their Research,” reports Greta Jochem. (NPR)
• Did a college president plagiarize his dissertation? (Michael Vasquez, Chronicle of Higher Education)
• The way the “statute of limitations” is loosely applied to investigations creates problems for those accused of misconduct, argue Karen Karas and Paul Thaler, who have represented such scientists. (JD Supra)
• What should you do if peers won’t cite your work? wonders Edmond Sanganyado.
• “In the past few years, some of the country’s most elite law reviews have elected students of color as editors-in-chief, asignal that yearslong diversity efforts might finally be paying off.” (Angela Morris, National Law Review)
• “To say there’s a ‘tremendous amount of overlap’ between these two papers is an understatement.” Andrew Gelman looks at publications by Brad Bushman, a gaming researcher at The Ohio State University whose work we’ve written about before.
• Marc Edwards, who played a key role in uncovering lead contamination in the Flint, Michigan water supply, has filed a complaint with Michigan regulators that a professor at Wayne State “used a falsified research proposal and exaggerated work resume to obtain grant funding.” (Jonathan Oosting, The Detroit News)

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

The post Weekend reads: “Weaponized transparency;” Fighting Academic Spam with humor; NIH cracks down appeared first on shakabot.