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? 

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on a “gut makeover,” a retraction following a mass resignation from an editorial board, and the resignation of a management researcher who admitted to misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• The NIH imposed unusual new requirements on Duke researchers following concerns over how the institution handled recent cases of misconduct. Our latest in Science.
• “In the end, science has to stand the test of time, not the test of what journal you happened to get it into during your lifetime as a scientist.” (Sylvia McLain; Girl, Interrupting)
• “Fake Peer Review: What We’ve Learned at Retraction Watch.” A presentation by our Ivan Oransky. And a video in which he talks about preliminary findings from our new retraction database.
• A psychologist has agreed to pay back more than $130,000 to resolve allegations that he submitted false claims to earn grants. (Jonathan Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• Did studies of antipsychotics demonstrate a “flagrant conflict of interest?” Marie Claude-Malbouef reports. (La Presse, in French)
• Should science lower the accepted p value threshold to .005? John Ioannidis considers, in JAMA.
• Two plastic surgeons in South Korea are fighting over claims that a textbook was plagiarized. (Song Soo-Youn, Korea Biomedical Review) 
• A story about a new lab approach that appeared in the Case Western student newspaper plagiarized a university news release, and has been retracted. (The Observer)
• The Grumpy Geophysicist is quite grumpy about preprints in earth science. (Craig Jones)
• A new preprint suggests “that the reproducibility problems discovered in psychology are also likely to be present in ecology and evolution.” (Open Science Framework)
• A systematic study of the India’s University Grants Commission’s (UGC) approved list of journals found “a huge number of dubious or predatory journals which publish substandard papers for a small fee with very little peer-reviewing, if at all.” (R. Prasad, The Hindu)
• “Our reliance on journal articles needs a redefinition, if not a shift,” say Tom Jefferson and Lars Jorgensen. (BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine)
• “If authors giving peer reviewers grief is a thing that happens to plenty of people, should we discuss if contact at all is appropriate?” Hilda Bastian looks at signing peer reviews. (Absolutely Maybe)
• “Last Fall This Scholar Defended Colonialism,” writes Vimal Patel. “Now He’s Defending Himself.” (The Chronicle of Higher Education) Background on this case from our archives.
• Want to know if that aquaculture journal is legit or predatory? A group of researchers has a new rubric. (Frontiers in Marine Science)
• A professor admitted Monday that she “had criminal sexual contact with a disabled man who was unable to speak” — and who had allegedly penned a now-retracted paper. (Thomas Moriarty, NJ.com)
• “As a major clinical trial in cardiology nears completion it has provoked a storm of criticism and controversy.” (Cardiobrief)
• “The National Institutes of Health will examine whether health officials violated federal policy against soliciting donations when they met with alcohol companies to discuss funding a study of the benefits of moderate drinking,” reports Roni Caryn Rabin, who reported earlier this week that some were asking questions about the study. (New York Times)
• “President Donald Trump’s likely pick to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is facing significant criticism because of a 20-year-old controversy over shoddy HIV research,” reports Marisa Taylor. (Kaiser Health News)
• A retraction earns a correction. (Scientific Reports)
• Scholarship is being damaged all over the world, write Mary Jane Curry and Theresa Lillis, because English is the lingua franca of journals. (Inside Higher Ed)

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: Fallout from misconduct at Duke; does journal prestige matter?; the data on Fake Peer Review appeared first on shakabot.