posts about or somewhat related to ‘retractions’

When Retractions go Viral →

While not as often as we’d like, news organizations often issue general factual corrections — and occasional outright retractions — to the stories they produce.

The problem, few actually see them and the original error is passed about the online wilds.

Not so with Mike Daisey’s This American Life investigation of electronics manufacturing giant Foxconn. Nieman Lab reports that the TAL episode dedicated to retracting the story is its most popular yet with with over 891,000 downloads and streams of the podcast since the story first aired.

The original Foxconn podcast had 888,000 downloads and streams in a similar timeframe. Since that time and additional 206,000 have listened to it.

Goes to show that biggie errors deserve a biggie response. In this American American Life’s case they dedicated a whole show to their errors. Something to learn from as most outlets bury their mistakes where few actually find them.

Nieman Lab, This American Life’s retraction of the Mike Daisey story set an online listening record.

drewvigal:

jayrosen:

All of this becomes clear in Retraction, which is an extraordinary display of transparency in corrective journalism.

Agreed. Definitely worth a listen.

FJP: Important as can be. Ira Glass and This American Life retraction of its Mike Daisey Apple/Foxconn episode.

Should be listened to but if you want to read the transcript, it’s available here.

jtotheizzoe:

The trouble with retractions
Retractions of scientific papers are up 10-fold, but publishing rates are only up by 44%. What gives? Why is so much research being pulled back, or worse, declared fraudulent?
(via Nature News)

The FJP: Here’s a potential answer for you. It comes courtesy of an article in The Register about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project that we Tumbled earlier today. In it, Richard Muller, the project lead, discusses that science needs to be more open in its publishing practices.

When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in “preprint” form before their publication. “It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,” he writes. “In fact, most universities and laboratories had ‘preprint libraries’ where you could frequently find colleagues.”
This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. “This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper.”
While this more tightly controlled review method may enhance the prestige of major journals, Muller told us, it does nothing for the advancement of science.
"I think this abandonment of the traditional peer review system is responsible, in part, for the fact that so many bad papers are being published,” he writes. “These papers have not be vetted by the true peers, the large scientific world.”

jtotheizzoe:

The trouble with retractions

Retractions of scientific papers are up 10-fold, but publishing rates are only up by 44%. What gives? Why is so much research being pulled back, or worse, declared fraudulent?

(via Nature News)

The FJP: Here’s a potential answer for you. It comes courtesy of an article in The Register about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project that we Tumbled earlier today. In it, Richard Muller, the project lead, discusses that science needs to be more open in its publishing practices.

When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in “preprint” form before their publication. “It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,” he writes. “In fact, most universities and laboratories had ‘preprint libraries’ where you could frequently find colleagues.”

This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. “This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper.”

While this more tightly controlled review method may enhance the prestige of major journals, Muller told us, it does nothing for the advancement of science.

"I think this abandonment of the traditional peer review system is responsible, in part, for the fact that so many bad papers are being published,” he writes. “These papers have not be vetted by the true peers, the large scientific world.”

(via darylelockhart)

Serious Retractions →

If you’re going to run retractions, you might as well do them right. That’s the story from the editors of Cancer Biology & Therapy in response to a 2008 paper that appeared in their journal.

As Retraction Watch quotes:

1) Dr. Wei Jia Kong’s name was used as the corresponding author without his knowledge or consent. Furthermore, Dr. Cai Pengcheng was unaware of his status as an author of the manuscript.

2) A fake email address for Dr. Kong was constructed and used by the authors to intercept any information that would be sent to the corresponding author.

3) Dr. Zhang Song and Ms. Yang Juhong have modified their accounts of the events several times during the investigation, making it difficult to determine exactly what occurred with respect to the data in question. However, The Editors have determined that Figure 4 of this manuscript is a re-publication of data in Cancer Letters (2007) 253:108-114 [“Gene silencing of TKTL1 by RNAi inhibits cell proliferation in human hepatoma cells”, by Song Zhang, Ju-Hong Yang, Chang-Kai Guo and Peng-cheng Cai]. The authors have misrepresented their data as being from 2 separate cell lines.

As Retraction Watch notes:

For those keeping score at home, that’s hitting for the cycle! Misleading authorship, plagiarism, data manipulation. And let’s not forget tampering with email.