How to Fix Peer Review; a research ethics oath; Papers become less legible – Retraction Watch

Would you consider one Donate to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch included:

Our list of withdrawn or withdrawn COVID-19 papers goes up to 249. There are more than 34,000 withdrawals in our database – powers the retreat warnings endnote, LibKey, Papers and Zotero. And have you seen our ranking of authors with the most disclaimers lately—or our list of the 10 most cited articles with disclaimers?

Here’s what happened elsewhere (some of these articles may be paid for, have paid access, or require free registration to read):

  • “Peer review is frustrating and flawed – here’s how we can fix it.”
  • “France will require PhD students to take a research ethics oath.”
  • “More and more adjectives and adverbs are used and the readability of scientific texts decreases”.
  • “The automated screening of all submitted studies for fraud is challenging due to the very different presentation of the baseline tables.”
  • “AI-assisted image fraud in scientific publications.”
  • “Improving plagiarism detection in text documents by hybrid weighted similarity.”
  • “Scientists should be given credit for correcting the literature.”
  • The Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology will hold a hearing on paper mills and research misconduct next week.
  • “Be careful with claims of plagiarism.”
  • “Uber paid academics six figures for research that was shared with the media.”
  • “Findings from full-text analyzes of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine.”
  • “We find that the model with high predictive values ​​identifies citations that were likely added during the peer review process, and conversely, with low predictive values, citations that are known to represent causal knowledge transfer.”
  • “[C]Current cardiovascular science reports often do not provide enough materials, protocols, data, or analytical information to reproduce a study.”
  • Wall Street Journal Adds the editor’s note that directly refutes the newspaper’s editorial on the abortion story.
  • Which articles about COVID-19 were withdrawn faster – preprints or peer-reviewed articles?
  • “Gone but not forgotten: Withdrawn COVID-19 papers still cited.”
  • “Withdrawals are not a panacea for bad research.”
  • “Look, Impact Factors is a pot with the saying…” A look at Impact Factors in Autism Journals.
  • “The statistical robustness of RCTs in influential journals has improved, but was low in all medical specialties.”
  • “‘Healthy in insane places’, 50 years later.” What to do “on a famous – but flawed – research paper”?
  • “Machiavellianism is associated with producing, but not necessarily with falling for bullshit.”
  • Two withdrawals from major publishers, in multiple acts with overlapping timelines.
  • Publishing in the pandemic: “Accelerated publishing or just an early bird effect?”
  • “Combat spider biologist [Jonathan Pruitt] step back [McMaster] university post.”
  • “So how much can one trust published science, and how accurate are the publicly expressed views about the honesty, or lack of honesty, of those doing scientific research?”
  • “The Sarasota Herald-Tribune … was forced to apologize and withdraw a column defending the Proud Boys, a violent white nationalist group, after public outrage and it was revealed that the author was involved with a member of the extremist organization is married.”
  • “Researchers talk about Reviewer 2.” A cartoon.

Like retraction watch? You can make one tax-deductible contribution to support our workfollow us on twitteras we on Facebookadd us to yours RSS readeror subscribe to ours digest daily. If you find a revocation, that is not in our databaseyou can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

Comments are closed.