News Articles 2019:
January:
Effects of Interviewer Support on Children’s Memory and Suggestibility: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Experimental Research (SemanticScholar, January 1, 2019)
Washington University scientist resigns after falsifying data in disease research (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 4, 2019)
Reproducibility of research is critical for open science and open Britain (The Higher Education, January 5, 2019)
Conflict of interest debate roils on; fake peer review scams; amateur hour at journals (Retraction Watch, January 05, 2019)
Innovative educational methods to enhance research integrity culture (EurekAlert!, January 8, 2019)
New ASU psychology professor studies how best to replicate scientific experiments (AUS Now, January 8, 2019)
Even potential participants of a research integrity conference commit plagiarism, organizers learn (Retraction Watch, January 10, 2019)
The Exclusive That Wasn’t? Publication Retracts Moonves Interview (New York Times, January 11, 2019)
Here’s How the Shutdown Is Delaying Climate Data and Undercutting Scientists (New York Times, January 16, 2019)
Bullied into bad science? (Discover, January 20, 2019)
Showdown over a study of abortion policy leads to a retraction, and leaves no one happy (Retraction Watch, January 22, 2019)
Twitter’s tampered samples: Limitation of big data sampling in social media (BMC, January 28, 2019)
In the post-truth world, we need to remember the philosophy of science (New Statements America, January 28, 2019)
Peer review could help smoke out the next Theranos (STAT, January 29, 2019)
The reproducibility crisis in the age of digital medicine (NPJ Digital, January 29, 2019)
Intellectual conflicts of interest pose hidden dangers to scientific accuracy (Onclive, January 31, 2019)
Most digital health unicorns lack peer-reviewed research data (MobiHealthNews, January 31, 2019)
Clemson workshop puts rigors of scientific publishing in perspective (Newsstand, January 31, 2019)
February:
Food packaging journal to retract paper by researchers in Thailand (Retraction Watch, February 1, 2019)
Changing Lives Through Research (Indiana University, February 05, 2019)
We need to talk about systematic fraud (Nature, February 6, 2019)
When science is unreliable (The Harvard Gazette, February 6, 2019)
A call for 400 retractions of papers on organ donors; “citation mania;” AAAS reassessing award for work on herbicide (Retraction Watch, February 9, 2019)
Overdue: A US advisory board for research integrity (Nature, February 11, 2019)
New tool tackles reproducibility crisis in science (UChicago News, February 12, 2019)
Darpa wants to solve science’s reproducibility crisis with AI (Wired, February 15, 2019)
The replication crisis may also be a theory crisis (Ars Technica, February 16, 2019)
AAAS: Machine learning ‘causing science crisis’ (BBC News, February 16, 2019)
Article retracted because of “racial characterizations;” India’s high retraction rate; meet the fraud finder (Retraction Watch, February 16, 2019)
Volunteers Fight Bad Science (NPR, February 17, 2019)
Machine learning is contributing to a “reproducibility crisis” within science (Technology Review, February 18, 2019)
How to Bring Prestige to Open Access- and Make Science More Reliable (The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2019)
Machine-learning techniques often produce misleading or wrong results, researcher warns (Computing, February 18, 2019)
Widely Used Neuroimaging Analyses Allow Almost Any Result To Be Presented As A Successful Replication, Paper Claims (Research Digest, February 18, 2019)
Is machine learning causing a ‘science crisis’? (Rice, February 19, 2019)
To maintain trust in science, lose the peer review (MedScape, February 19, 2019)
Scientific Publishing: Transformation, metrics and best practice with Dr David Moher (UNSW, February 28, 2019)
March:
Open Science Isn’t Always Open to All Scientists (American Scientist, March 2019)
Just how miserable is work? A meta-analysis comparing work and non-work affect (PLOS One, March 5, 2019)
Eyes wide shut at vision journal as retraction notice misses the point (Retraction Watch, March 8, 2019)
Research integrity and why bad science has become such a problem (Genetic Literacy Project, March 11, 2019)
Trump once again requests deep cuts in U.S. science spending (Science, March 11, 2019)
Rapidly declining remarkability of temperature anomalies may obscure public perception of climate change (PNAS, March 12, 2019)
Scientific Integrity Act Would Be an Important Step Forward for Science, Health (Union of Concerned Scientists, March 13, 2019)
The rise and fall of scientific authority- and how to bring it back (Nature, March 18, 2019)
‘They Have Lied for Decades’: European Parliament Scrutinise Exxon’s Climate Science Denial (Desmog, March 20, 2019)
Letter: ‘Racial Profiling Harms Science’ (Inside HigherEd, March 22, 2019)
Statistical significance should be abandoned, say scientists (The BMJ, March 25, 2019)
Let’s Start Teaching Scientists How to Withstand Attacks on Fact (Earth & Space Science News, March 25, 2019)
Mike Nesbitt: Mixed messages from Sinn Fein undermine their credibility (NewsLetter, March 27, 2019)
April:
Duke University’s huge misconduct fine is a reminder to reward rigour (Nature, April 02, 2019)
Major new grant to investigate credibility of social research claims (U&M, April 3, 2019)
The replication crisis is good for science (The Conversation, April 8, 2019)
Top journals retract DNA-repair studies after misconduct probe (Nature, April 15, 2019)
Inferential Science- What Could Go Wrong? (Evolution News & Science Today, April 15, 2019)
What is Open Science? (Technical.ly, April 18, 2019)
P-hacking and Scientific Reproducibility (MathScholar, April 20, 2019)
A Checklist Manifesto for Empirical Evaluation: a Preemptive Strike Against a Replication Crisis in Computer Science (SigArch, April 22, 2019)
False positive pathology: improving reproducibility with the next generation of pathologists (Nature, April 24 2019)
Loners, Pathfinders, or Explorers? How are the Humanities Progressing in Open Science? (Plos Biology, April 24, 2019)
Working scientist podcast: How technology can help solve science’s reproducibility crisis (Nature, April 25, 2019)
How one journal became a “major retraction engine” (Retraction Watch, April 25, 2019)
A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures (PysArXiv, April 26, 2019)
A Roadmap for Transparent Research in Special Education and Related Disciplines (Center for Open Science, April 26, 2019)
A U.S. gov’t memo on publishing leaves scientists in disbelief; money wasted on flawed research; an eye doctor whose research subjects were at risk (Retraction Watch, April 27, 2019)
Has the Supreme Court Endorsed the Use of Junk Science in the Administrative State? (The Regulatory Review, April 29, 2019)
Should a paper on mindfulness have been retracted? A co-author weighs in (Retraction Watch, April 29, 2019)
An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact (Gates Open Research, April 30, 2019)
May:
Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond (Plos Biology, May 1, 2019)
Science retracts report on deadly Kumamoto earthquake (Retraction Watch, May 2, 2019)
New Report Examines Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, Recommends Ways to Improve Transparency and Rigor in Research (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, May 7, 2019)
RETRACTED: Authors’ remorse: Researchers retract paper so they can publish it in a journal with a higher impact factor (Retraction Watch, May 7, 2019)
After 18 months — and recommended retractions — no movement in psychology case (Retraction Watch, May 9, 2019)
Just how common is positive publication bias? Here’s one researcher who’s trying to figure that out (Retraction Watch, May 13, 2019)
Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives (De Gruyter, May 15, 2019)
Sharing the coin of the realm: How one journal hopes new authorship rules will cut down on bias (Retraction Watch, May 16, 2019)
Ten simple rules for carrying out and writing meta-analyses (PLOS Computational Biology, May 16, 2019)
How Model-Based Meta-Analysis Leverages Public Data to Support Strategic Drug Development Decision Making (AAPS NewsMagazine, May 19, 2019)
A university requested retractions of eight papers. It took journals a year to yank four of them (Retraction Watch, May 20, 2019)
MIT professor is accused of claiming others’ scientific discoveries as his own (STAT, May 21, 2019)
Publication Bias in Radiology: How Does It Happen and What Is the Cost? (Radiology, May 28, 2019)
Replication papers in the JF: An update (The Journal of Finance, May 28, 2019)
Critic up to 18 retractions for plagiarism (Retraction Watch, May 30, 2019)
Retracted chemistry studies most often plagued with plagiarism (Chemical & Engineering News, May 31, 2019)
June:
The trim-and-fill method for publication bias practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses (Medicine, June 2019)
An Evaluation of Publication Bias in High-Impact Orthopaedic Literature (JB & JS, June 2019)
Chaos as Chaos retracts paper it apparently never should have published in the first place (Retraction Watch, June 6, 2019)
Study of a “nudge” to use hand sanitizer retracted (Retraction Watch, June 10, 2019)
Hyped-up science erodes trust. Here’s how researchers can fight back (VoxNews, June 11, 2019)
“Permeable to bad science:” Journal retracts paper hailed by proponents of homeopathy (Retraction Watch, June 11, 2019)
Public health journal retracts paper on austerity for “inaccurate and misleading results” (Retraction Watch, June 13, 2019)
A visual tool for defining reproducibility and replicability (Nature Human Behavior, June 17, 2019)
Catholic medical journal pulls paper on conversion therapy over statistical problems (Retraction Watch, June 17, 2019)
Psychologists Show It’s Possible To Fix Misleading Press Releases – Without Harming Their News Value (Research Digest, June 17, 2019)
What universities can learn from one of science’s biggest frauds (Nature, June 18, 2019)
Statisticians clamor for retraction of paper by Harvard researchers they say uses a “nonsense statistic” (Retraction Watch, June 19, 2019)
We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused (Slate, June 20, 2019)
“With great pity,” author retracts paper for “severe problems” including references that “are not allowed to be cited” and “severe law issues” (Retraction Watch, June 20, 2019)
Publication bias – Importance of studies with negative results! (PMC, June 29, 2019)
July:
Proprietary Research Can Give You Credibility — Here’s How to Do It Correctly (Entrepreneur, July 2, 2019)
Response to: Assessing the risk of bias and publication bias should be integral parts of the systematic review (EJC, July 2, 2019)
Meta-analysis in the era of big data (Springer Link, July 4, 2019)
Credibility, Accuracy, and Comprehensiveness of Internet-Based Information About Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review (JMIR, July 05, 2019)
Are Effect Sizes in Emotional Intelligence Field Declining? A Meta-Meta Analysis (Frontiers, July 16, 2019)
Criminologist posts 27-page article explaining why he asked for one of his papers to be retracted (Retraction Watch, July 17, 2019)
How to Make Authentic Research Experiences Widely Available (The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 18, 2019)
Exclusive: Russian site says it has brokered authorships for more than 10,000 researchers (Retraction Watch, July 18, 2019)
Reproducibility crisis (Laboratory News, July 23, 2019)
An innovative way to publish (Retraction Watch, July 23, 2019)
‘Not biologically plausible’: questions about survey data earn fluorosis paper a flag (Retraction Watch, July 24, 2019)
The Credibility Crisis In Scientific Publishing (Texas A&M Today, July 29, 2019)
Kyoto University suspends first author of retracted Kumamoto quake paper (Retraction Watch, July 29, 2019)
Authors object as “doubtful” data doom dermatology paper (Retraction Watch, July 30, 2019)
Can results of meta-analysis with high heterogeneity provide any predictive values? (European Heart Journal, July 31, 2019)
August:
Change the bias, change the behavior? Maybe not (ScienceDaily, August 2, 2019)
Research Design and Methodology (InTechOpen, August 7, 2019)
Limited by our limitations (Perspect Med Educ, August 8, 2019)
Journals retract more than a dozen studies from China that may have used executed prisoners’ organs (Retraction Watch, August 14, 2019)
Change in Support for Higher-Education Research and Development, by Source of Funds, 2011 to 2017 (The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 18, 2019)
Meta-meta-analysis meets with retraction for group that had faked peer review elsewhere (Retraction Watch, August 19, 2019)
Springer Nature took eleven months to retract a plagiarized book, then made it disappear without a trace (Retraction Watch, August 21, 2019)
Hepatitis expert up to five retractions and one expression of concern denies reusing images (Retraction Watch, August 22, 2019)
University of Kansas chemist indicted on fraud charges (Chemical & Engineering News, August 23, 2019)
Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology (Springer Link, August 23, 2019)
Weekend reads: Self-citation farms; an editor refuses to retract; publishing enters politics (Retraction Watch, August 24, 2019)
Unconscious Bias, Implicit Bias, and Microaggressions: What Can We Do about Them? (American Bar, August 26, 2019)
Cancer researcher up to five retractions (Retraction Watch, August 27, 2019)
UCLA group has three papers retracted (Retraction Watch, August 29, 2019)
Former NCI postdoc faked data from nearly 60 experiments (Retraction Watch, August 29, 2019)
Measurement bias in self-reports of offending: a systematic review of experiments (Springer Link, August 29, 2019)
September:
How to Overcome the Science Reproducibility Crisis (The Fourth Revolution, September 3, 2019)
Reproducibility and Replicability in Research (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, September 3, 2019)
Open Science is for Aging Research, Too (Oxford Academic, September 4, 2019)
Is positive publication bias really a bias, or an intentionally created discrimination toward negative results? (Journal of Anesthesia, September 5, 2019)
Animal registries aim to reduce bias (Nature, September 9, 2019)
Association between coffee consumption and risk of bladder cancer in a meta-analysis of 16 prospective studies (Springer Link, September 13, 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Confronts a ‘Reproducibility’ Crisis (Wired, September 16, 2019)
Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news (PNAS, September 17, 2019)
The Lancet Digital Health: First systematic review and meta-analysis suggests artificial intelligence may be as effective as health professionals at diagnosing disease (EurekAlert!, September 24, 2019)
Publication Bias in Trials With and Without Null Findings—Reply (JAMA Network, September 24, 2019)
Congratulations. Your Study Went Nowhere (New York Times, September 24, 2019)
October:
Effect of Smoking on Tuberculosis Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Respiratory Care, October 1, 2019)
October 2019 – Replication (All I Ever Wanted) (ScienceEditor, October 3, 2019)
Authors retract paper claiming religious upbringing is linked to less generosity (Retraction Watch, October 4, 2019)
How to solve the reproducibility crisis in Psychology (IB Psychology, October 7, 2019)
Is the Media Biased Against Trump? Researchers Have an Answer (Columbia University, October 7, 2019)
Is this study legit? 5 questions to ask when reading news stories of medical research (TheConversation, October 9, 2019)
Beyond the ‘replication crisis,’ does research face an ‘inference crisis’? (ScienceDaily, October 10, 2019)
Publication bias towards Western populations harms humanity (Nature, October 10, 2019)
Publisher retracts paper when authors try publishing it again in another of its journals (Retraction Watch, October 11, 2019)
In 2014, a study claimed high heels made women more attractive. Now it’s been retracted. (Retraction Watch, October 12, 2019)
A researcher with 30 retractions and counting: The whistleblower speaks (Retraction Watch, October 15, 2019)
Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice (Taylor Francis Online, October 15, 2019)
Want To Know Whether A Psychology Study Will Replicate? Just Ask A Bunch Of People (The BPS, October 16, 2019)
Challenges in irreproducible research (Nature, October 18, 2019)
Author protests as Elsevier retracts nine papers for fake peer review (Retraction Watch, October 25, 2019)
‘Misguided and ineffectual’: Publisher offers mea culpa in retraction of paper questioning link between HIV and AIDS (Retraction Watch, October 25, 2019)
Scientist loses job after 30 retractions; breast cancer researcher committed misconduct; “two crashes” at Duke (Retraction Watch, October 26, 2019)
“It’s not a replication crisis. It’s an innovation opportunity” (NatureIndex, October 28, 2019)
No ‘possible fraudulent explanation’: Frequent co-author tasked with clearing colleagues of image manipulation (Retraction Watch, October 29, 2019)
Student Notebook: Meta-Analyses, To Do or Not to Do (APS, October 29, 2019)
61 retractions for controversial psychologist Hans Eysenck? That’s a significant underestimate, says his biographer (Retraction Watch, October 30, 2019)
Feds ban ex-Duke lab tech from funding after she faked data linked to 60 NIH grants (Retraction Watch, October 31, 2019)
The Replication Crisis Lowers The Public’s Trust In Psychology — But Can That Trust Be Built Back Up? (The BPS, October 31, 2019)
November:
Former Johns Hopkins postdoc sanctioned by Feds for data fabrication (Retraction Watch, November 6, 2019)
Intraocular Pressure Changes of Healthy Lowlanders at Different Altitude Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Frontiers, November 6, 2019)
How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches (Springer Link, November 7, 2019)
DO BLUEBERRIES ACTUALLY IMPROVE COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE? AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLICATION BIAS IN PUBLISHED RESEARCH (Oxford Academic, November 8, 2019)
Thirty years after publication, a paper cited by creationists is retracted (Retraction Watch, November 11, 2019)
After ten years of being in limbo, a chemistry paper is retracted (Retraction Watch, November 12, 2019)
Instead of replicating studies with problems, let’s replicate the good studies. (Consider replication as an honor, not an attack.) (Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, November 13, 2019)
‘The methodology does not generate the results’: Journal corrects accounting study with flawed methods (Retraction Watch, November 13, 2019)
Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent paper on vaccines and autism has been cited more than a thousand times. These researchers tried to figure out why. (Retraction Watch, November 18, 2019)
Criminologist to have four papers retracted following months of scrutiny (Retraction Watch, November 19, 2019)
Death, retirement, and inability to contact authors leads to retraction of paper first flagged five years ago (Retraction Watch, November 20, 2019)
Food poisoning researcher up to four spoiled papers (Retraction Watch, November 21, 2019)
Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis (Wiley, November 22, 2019)
NIH to lift Duke sanctions stemming from misconduct (Retraction Watch, November 22, 2019)
‘We decided to play it safe.’ Journal doesn’t retract paper even though the authors neglected to mention that they didn’t do the experiments themselves. (Retraction Watch, November 22, 2019)
Political science prof up to five retractions after she “carelessly uses parts of diverse sources” (Retraction Watch, November 25, 2019)
“I cannot agree to this unfounded, unscientific, and rather Kafkian retraction.” (Retraction Watch, November 26, 2019)
‘We badly need to change processes’: How ‘slow, opaque and inconsistent’ journals’ responses to misconduct can be (Retraction Watch, November 29, 2019)
December:
The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials (ScienceDirect, December 2019)
Huge study documents gender gap in chemistry publishing (Nature, December 11, 2019)
What’s next for psychology’s embattled field of social priming (Nature, December 11, 2019)
Can A Research Accelerator Solve The Psychology Replication Crisis? (NPR, December 13, 2019)
The Top Retractions of 2019 (TheScientist, December 16, 2019)
Effect Declines Are Systematic, Strong, and Ubiquitous: A Meta-Meta-Analysis of the Decline Effect in Intelligence Research (Frontiers, December 19, 2019)
More Than 1 in 5 U.S. Papers Has Closed. This Is the Result (New York Times, December 21, 2019)
What We Learned in Science News in 2019 (New York Times, December 21, 2019)
Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects (Nature, December 23, 2019)
Endocrinology researcher in South Korea scores four retractions in a year (Retraction Watch, December 23, 2019)
Blood pressure, hypertension and the risk of sudden cardiac death: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies (SpringerLink, December 24, 2019)
‘Disbelief’: Researchers, watch out for this new scam involving journal special issues (Retraction Watch, December 27, 2019)
‘A satisfactory explanation was not provided’: Physicists in India lose third paper (Retraction Watch, December 30, 2019)
Psychiatrist who stole grant funds also engaged in research misconduct, says ORI (Retraction Watch, December 30, 2019)