iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.

Link to original content: https://retractionwatch.com/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/51659

{"id":51659,"date":"2017-09-02T10:26:20","date_gmt":"2017-09-02T14:26:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/?p=51659"},"modified":"2017-09-02T10:37:09","modified_gmt":"2017-09-02T14:37:09","slug":"weekend-reads-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2017\/09\/02\/weekend-reads-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Weekend reads: Publishing too much?; CRISPR doubts; Pharma in predatory journals"},"content":{"rendered":"

$\"\"$ The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper from Yale on ketamine and depression<\/a>, a retraction for Carlo Croce<\/a>, and a discussion of when a citation may not be enough<\/a>. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:<\/p>\n

A researcher published 77 papers in a year.\u00a0 Should that be a red flag<\/a>? (Soumya Chatterjee, The News Minute)<\/li>\n
Scientists raise doubts about the validity of a high-profile Nature paper about using CRISPR gene editing in human embryos, suggesting\u00a0 that many of the embryos weren’t actually edited<\/a>. (Paul Knopfler, The Niche blog)<\/li>\n
It’s not just developing countries: Big pharmaceutical companies publish their research\u00a0 in predatory journals, too<\/a>. (Esme Deprez and Caroline Chen, Bloomberg)<\/li>\n
Three journals published by the Royal Society of Chemistry are hit by fake peer reviews,\u00a0 prompting the retraction of five articles<\/a>. (Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Chemistry World)<\/li>\n
Our database of retractions isn’t yet complete, but it now contains more than 10,000 retractions<\/a>.<\/li>\n
Thousands of scientists have signed an open letter to the U.S. NIH saying \u201cthat classifying human behaviour studies as clinical trials creates unnecessary red tape<\/a>.\u201d (Sara Reardon, Nature)<\/li>\n
“Why\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0do a study?<\/a>\u00a0Why not join the great tradition of scientists, going back to Galileo and Newton, and make my mark on the world?<\/a>” For starters, because getting through an IRB is a nightmarishly difficult process, as Scott Alexander discovered personally. (Slate Star Codex)<\/li>\n
\u201cNo article defined \u2018sex\u2019 and\/or \u2018gender.\u2019 No publication carried out a comprehensive sex and gender analysis.\u201d A look at randomized controlled trials in Canada<\/a>. (Research Integrity and Peer Review)<\/li>\n
\u201c Greetings from Clinical Depression<\/a>.\u201d An unintentional metaphor for predatory publishing spam? (Riddled blog)<\/li>\n
\u201c The emperor of junk science forensics has died<\/a>,\u201d reports Radley Balko, in a piece that also introduces the reader to Fraud magazine.<\/li>\n
\u201cResearch is that horrifying Frankenstein at large which is hunting down everyone in the education department<\/a>.\u201d (Fatima Batool, Pakistan Today)<\/li>\n
More plagiarism charges at Jawaharlal Nehru University in India<\/a> (NDTV) and North-West University in South Africa<\/a>. (News24)<\/li>\n
Confusion over preprints? \u201cAn academic is boycotting peer review for a scholarly journal after it turned down a manuscript that had previously been published on the website of an education centre<\/a>.\u201d (Holly Else, Times Higher Education)<\/li>\n
\u201cThere’s a new preprint on @PeerJPreprints<\/a> about preprints, where the author only cites 19 of their own preprints.\u201d Jon Tennant muses<\/a> about this paper<\/a>.<\/li>\n
“Dr Con Man: the rise and fall of a celebrity scientist who fooled almost everyone.” An essay in the Guardian about Paolo Macchiarini<\/a>. (John Rasko, Carl Power)<\/li>\n
\u201cAllegations of serious misconduct, especially in relation to academic matters, should be tested by academics.\u201d A\u00a0 push to get rid of some disciplinary commit<\/a>tees at Australian universities<\/a>. (Bernard Lane, The Australian)<\/li>\n
“We all carry a range of biases that are products of our culture and experiences or, in some cases, of outcomes that we desire.” Science editor in chief Jeremy Berg on\u00a0 measuring and managing bias<\/a>.<\/li>\n
“Left with the imitators, who perform solid, sometimes useful incremental research, we are moving in a circle instead of forward,like circus elephants following each other\u2019s tail.<\/a>” (Sui Huang, Times Higher Education).<\/li>\n
A new article asks\u00a0 who is actually harmed by predatory publishing practices<\/a>, taking aim at\u00a0 an earlier article<\/a>\u00a0by Jeffrey Beall in the same journal in the process. (Communication, Capitalism & Critique)<\/li>\n
Badges to reward data sharing? That study\u00a0 is filled with bias<\/a>, says Hilda Bastian. (PLOS blogs)<\/li>\n
Japanese finance minister Taro Aso retracts a statement in which he\u00a0 claimed that Hitler had “the right motives.”<\/a>(Justin McCurry, The Guardian)<\/li>\n
A new paper examines whether the difficulty journal editors have in recruiting reviewers\u00a0 influences the outcome of the review process itself<\/a>. (Scientometrics<\/em>)<\/li>\n
120 Dartmouth faculty sign a letter to the university’s president to retract his condemnation of\u00a0a scholar\u00a0who is a rising expert on the antifa<\/a>. (Colleen Flaherty, Inside Higher Ed)<\/li>\n
Six new preprint servers launch to support increased scholarly communication in disciplines\u00a0 ranging from sports medicine to paleontology<\/a>. (Center for Open Science)<\/li>\n
“These studies help decide whether to progress the drug to human trials and, if so, what a reasonable starting dose for a human might be. However, because of species differences, something that is effective and safe in an animal\u00a0 might not be so in a human.<\/a>” (Ri Scarborough, The Conversation)<\/li>\n
An ecologist posts a letter from the U.S. Department of Energy asking her to remove mentions of “climate change” in her grant application. \u00a0 She has now taken the post down<\/a>. (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post)<\/li>\n
The\u00a0Cureus Journal of Medical Science<\/em>\u00a0offers a new opportunity\u00a0to quickly publish case studies<\/a>, by modeling itself on Turbotax, of all things. (Megan Molteni, Wired) But it’s not without its\u00a0 issues<\/a>, as we’ve covered\u00a0 as well<\/a>.<\/li>\n
Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ, offers advice to NEJM on dealing\u00a0 with old, undisclosed conflicts of interest<\/a>. (The BMJ Opinion; Smith is on the board of directors of our parent non-profit organization)<\/li>\n
Publons announces the shortlist for the first ever Sentinel Award.\u00a0 We’re honored to be nominated, and in such good company<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a\u00a0<\/i>tax-deductible contribution to support our growth<\/i><\/a>. You can also follow us\u00a0<\/i>on Twitter<\/i><\/a>, like us\u00a0<\/i>on Facebook<\/i><\/a>, add us to your\u00a0<\/i>RSS reader<\/i><\/a>, sign up on our\u00a0<\/i>homepage<\/i><\/a>\u00a0for an email every time there\u2019s a new post, or subscribe to our\u00a0<\/i>daily digest<\/i><\/a>. Click\u00a0<\/i>here to review our Comments Policy<\/i><\/a>. For a sneak peek at what we\u2019re working on,\u00a0<\/i>click here<\/i><\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper from Yale on ketamine and depression, a retraction for Carlo Croce, and a discussion of when a citation may not be enough. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[640],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-weekend-reads"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51659","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

iBetuBet.com - Apostando apenas na Vitórias!