Retraction Watch!

[agentkeysel]

“Retraction” is a word that no one in academia ever wants to hear. We make a big deal out of publications, but people seldom talk about retractions, because let’s be honest: nothing good ever comes out of a retraction. Reputations become (sometimes irreparably) damaged, and in the worst scenarios, scientists lose their jobs.

You may think that the majority of retractions result from the realization of errors in data collection or analysis. Or at least, that’s what journals want you to believe. A survey published in PNAS shows that some journals attempt to hide the true reasons for retraction by posting “incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements." The survey found that deliberate misconduct accounted for a whopping 43.4% of retractions in the Life Sciences category that were documented on PubMed. "True” errors accounted for 21.3%.

To those scientists who stick to the straight and narrow, I think you’ll take a liking to Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to monitoring and highlighting paper retractions from journals, both big and small. I was introduced to this blog by a graduate student in my lab, and I think it’s a fantastic concept. It’s one of those things on the internet that are unintentionally humourous… unless of course, your name shows up.

I wouldn’t say Retraction Watch is a guilty pleasure of mine, but it *is* oddly satisfying to read… even thought it is quite sad. All these instances of plagiarism, incorrect conclusions, error-filled analyses, fraudulent data, manipulated images, fabricated blots, and paper duplications. Wow.

They say that a poor workman blames his tools. If you’re a scientist and you discover your tools don’t do exactly what you thought they did, however, the right thing to do is let other scientists relying on your work know.

A model retraction in the Journal of Neurochemistry for “unexpected effect” of a filter | Retraction Watch

Could Nature’s 2-year torrent of paper retractions be a good thing?

[pknoepfl]

Could Nature’s 2-year torrent of paper retractions be a good thing?

The Flood The last two years at Nature Magazine have seen a surprising wave of paper retractions. In 2013 and now just so far in 2014, Nature has retracted a total of 14 papers. How unusual is that?

Historically, Nature retracts relatively few papers, perhaps just under two per year on average.

What the heck has been going on in 2013-2014?

Let’s break it down.

Last year in 2013, Nature retracted

View On WordPress

[ponyota]

in the tags, put 

- where u live

- ur first language 

- what u call this:

[sosuperawesome]

Earrings by IAMPRETTYNEAT on Etsy

• So Super Awesome is also on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest •

[unflatteringcatselfies]

She’s on the nip

[divinedorothy]

please stop mocking benedict cumberbatch for the way he looks, this will have dire ramifications for earth’s relationship with sur'kesh and all other salarian planets. He is an ambassador to this planet and if humans ever want a seat on the council they’re going to have to learn to stop mocking other species for their appearances

[humanoidhistory]

On June 22, 1973, astronaut Joe Kerwin goes on a spacewalk outside the Skylab space station.

[pleimert]

This game was so awful, but, man, is it pretty. And these guys went on to create Tomb Raider, of all things. Some day I’ll have to sit down with a walkthrough and actually beat this thing.

Fun fact: My brother bought this game on CD-ROM once. Worst purchase ever. The CD-ROM was just the disk version pressed onto a CD. No voices, no enhancements, nothing.