Podcasts about Retraction Watch

Os hablaba la semana pasada del caso de Jason Arday, profesor de Cambridge al que descubrieron el plagio de su tesis. Todo avanzó con una rapidez asombrosa: se empezó a hablar de él a principios de mes y este viernes apareció muerto. La repercusión mediática, las reacciones, las posturas de ambas partes y, finalmente, el suicidio han ensombrecido el panorama y debilitado a la universidad. Su abrupta dimisión, aparentemente acompañada de una carta generada por IA, deja más preguntas que respuestas. El escándalo arrancó cuando Nathan Cofnas, el “realista racial” despedido por Emmanuel College en 2024, publicó acusaciones de plagio en Substack. David Sanders, de la Universidad de Purdue, confirmó tras revisar el material que existía “plagio extenso”. Jack Grove y Retraction Watch también lo denunciaron. Después se descubrió que Arday llevaba años afirmando ser autor de un libro que nunca escribió, haber recaudado cinco millones de libras para obras benéficas, haber sido estrella del billar y haber corrido 35 maratones en un mes. Resultó ser un mal profesor cuyo trabajo carecía del rigor metodológico más básico. Aseguró haber sido profesor visitante en Ohio State y Glasgow; ambas instituciones lo han negado de forma explícita. Aun con las pruebas sobre la mesa, mantuvo apoyos, especialmente entre la extrema izquierda, en un claro ejemplo de tribalismo ideológico. Hubo una falta de rigor desde Liverpool John Moores, que le otorgó el doctorado, hasta Cambridge, que aceptó sin cuestionar. Sus investigaciones no hallaron nada: o no investigaron lo suficiente o desestimaron indicios claros. Arday no fue evaluado con los mismos estándares que el resto, probablemente por su raza y por el valor publicitario que reportaba. Las instituciones se atrincheraron hasta que la presión las obligó a echarlo. El Good Law Project publicó una carta abierta en su defensa, firmada entre otros por Lord Simon Woolley y Zack Polanski, que trataba las acusaciones como una campaña racista. La ironía es evidente: al reducir todo a la identidad, hacía exactamente lo que condenaba. El verdadero problema no es que Arday mintiera —el mundo está lleno de embusteros—, sino cómo llegó a ser catedrático y fellow en Cambridge. Este debate nunca debió requerir un escándalo de tal magnitud para forzar una investigación seria. El caso ha destrozado la credibilidad de las universidades implicadas, ha dañado los estándares académicos y casi con seguridad perjudicará a futuros académicos de minorías. Arday puso fin no solo a su carrera, sino a su vida. Cambridge y quienes propiciaron este fracaso institucional deben asumir responsabilidades. · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #jasonarday #cambridge Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Jason Arday era, hasta la semana pasada, catedrático de sociología de la educación en la universidad de Cambridge. Consiguió el puesto en 2023 cuando tenía 37 años, lo que le convirtió en el catedrático negro más joven en historia de esta centenaria universidad. Su ascenso parecía un milagro. Hijo de inmigrantes ghaneses criado en un barrio de clase trabajadora del sur de Londres, contaba que le habían diagnosticado autismo y retraso del desarrollo, que no habló hasta los 11 años y que no leyó ni escribió hasta los 18. A pesar de todo ello, en menos de veinte años se hizo con una cátedra en una de las universidades más antiguas y prestigiosas del mundo. A eso había que añadir méritos múltiples como filántropo, atleta y santo laico que recaudaba millones de libras corriendo maratones. Hasta cierto punto se entiende que los medios le adorasen porque su historia era realmente conmovedora. El problema es que esa historia no era cierta. Todo empezó hace cosa de un año con unas acusaciones de plagio en su tesis doctoral que realizó un periodista de Times Higher Education, una revista especializada en temas educativos. Pero el asunto quedó aparcado porque la universidad en la que hizo el doctorado, la John Moores de Liverpool, dio por buena la tesis. Poco después el biólogo Nathan Cofnas se encargó de revelar en Substack decenas de pasajes casi literales copiados de una tesis ajena que se presentó en 2009. La historia estalló cuando la retomaron grandes rotativos londinenses como The Times, The Daily Telegraph o The Guardian. La universidad de Cambridge respondió denunciando una vil campaña de desprestigio contra Arday, la izquierda mediática entretanto cerró filas con él hablando de racismo. Pero dos hechos lo cambiaron todo. El primero fue que Retraction Watch revisó la información relativa al plagio y constató que era cierta. Arday había plagiado de forma extensa otra tesis. En Cambridge, además, lo sabían. Peor aún, la universidad hizo todo lo posible para intimidar a quienes investigaban. Un año antes Arday contrató a Carter-Ruck para amordazar al periodista de Times Higher Education y le denunció ante la policía por acoso cuando tan solo se había limitado a enviar tres correos muy educados en dos meses. El segundo fue que, gracias al escrutinio de periodistas y aficionados, se supo que Arday no había falseado solo su obra, sino su vida entera. Todo lo que decía sobre sus propios logros era mentira. Sus hazañas maratonianas no aparecen en ningún registro y no hay constancia de que la obra solidaria que dijo realizar en Sudamérica sea cierta. Tampoco son ciertas las supuestas amenazas racistas que aseguró que había tenido que padecer en Cambridge. Presumía también de haber sido profesor en varias universidades, de un libro que la editorial Palgrave McMillan rechazó, de aparecer en un documental grabado antes de que él naciera y de haber recibido castigos físicos en el colegio. Tampoco está muy claro que sea autista. Por lo demás, su obra académica es muy deficiente, está llena de charlatanería posmoderna y cursilerías propias de un manual de autoayuda. Como profesor era pésimo. Muchos de sus alumnos se quejaron porque las supervisiones eran muy malas o inexistentes. El miércoles pasado la universidad de Cambridge abrió una investigación interna y Arday dimitió horas después. La cuestión de fondo no es tanto Arday en sí mismo como el sistema académico que lo ha hecho posible. Una universidad rendida a todos los delirios posmodernos, incapaz de exigir a un académico negro los estándares que se exigen a otros, hizo de Arday una mascota. El racismo invertido sigue siendo racismo. Al impostor, entretanto, le abrieron la puerta de par en par sin mirarle siquiera el currículum. En La ContraRéplica: 0:00 Introducción 4:10 Jason el impostor 46:24 Educación para los MENA · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #jasonarday #cambridge Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

¿Qué ocurre cuando una terapia genética experimental pasa del laboratorio a un paciente humano antes de que sepamos realmente si es segura? En este video analizamos el caso de una niña de 6 años en China que murió después de recibir una terapia génica experimental basada en edición genética, un caso que ha abierto preguntas extremadamente serias sobre medicina genética, bioética, investigación clínica, seguridad de las terapias génicas y los límites de la ciencia.El caso ocurrió el 24 de marzo de 2025, cuando médicos y científicos intentaron tratar a una niña cuya enfermedad estaba relacionada con una mutación genética que afectaba el desarrollo de su cerebro. El equipo desarrolló un base editor, una herramienta de edición genética diseñada específicamente para corregir la mutación, y utilizó virus modificados como vehículo para transportar las instrucciones hasta las células cerebrales. La terapia había mostrado resultados prometedores en modelos animales, incluyendo ratones y primates, y los padres decidieron asumir los riesgos con la esperanza de evitar una vida marcada por una discapacidad grave.Pero el tratamiento tuvo un desenlace devastador. Después de recibir la terapia génica, la niña desarrolló fiebre y posteriormente signos de daño renal, falleciendo aproximadamente una semana después. Una investigación de Science y Retraction Watch, basada en el trabajo del periodista Brendan Borell, examinó el caso y las circunstancias que rodearon el tratamiento. De acuerdo con un informe hospitalario, una de las explicaciones más probables fue una respuesta inmunitaria grave contra los virus utilizados para administrar el editor genético.El caso plantea preguntas fundamentales: ¿cuándo es ético probar una terapia genética en un niño? ¿Qué significa realmente que un tratamiento haya funcionado en ratones y monos? ¿Cuánta evidencia necesitamos antes de administrar una tecnología de edición genética experimental a un ser humano? ¿Los padres recibieron información suficiente sobre los riesgos? Y, quizá la pregunta más incómoda, ¿qué ocurre cuando la esperanza de una cura se encuentra con una tecnología que todavía no comprendemos completamente?En el video hablamos de terapia génica, edición genética, CRISPR, base editing, base editors, vectores virales, terapia génica in vivo, enfermedades genéticas, neurogenética, ensayos clínicos, modelos animales, seguridad biológica, bioética, consentimiento informado y medicina experimental. También explicamos cómo funcionan los editores de bases, por qué los virus pueden utilizarse para transportar herramientas genéticas hasta las células y por qué una terapia que parece segura en animales puede comportarse de manera completamente diferente en un paciente humano.Además, analizamos las preguntas que han surgido alrededor de la investigación científica que precedió al tratamiento, incluyendo dudas sobre la seguridad observada en primates, la transparencia sobre la muerte de la paciente y la responsabilidad de los investigadores y de las revistas científicas al comunicar resultados de terapias experimentales. El caso también abre un debate sobre conflictos de interés, regulación de la investigación médica, responsabilidad científica y los límites de la innovación biomédica.La edición genética promete revolucionar el tratamiento de enfermedades que durante décadas parecían incurables. CRISPR y tecnologías como el base editing podrían algún día corregir directamente las mutaciones responsables de enfermedades humanas. Pero este caso nos recuerda que entre demostrar que una tecnología funciona en un laboratorio y demostrar que es segura para una persona existe un abismo.Porque cuando estamos hablando de ciencia experimental, el fracaso no significa simplemente que un experimento no funcionó. A veces significa que alguien paga el precio. Y la pregunta es cuánto riesgo estamos dispuestos a aceptar en nombre de una posible cura.

First up on the podcast, freelance science journalist Brendan Borrell talks about his work reporting on the previously undisclosed death of a 6-year-old girl in a gene-editing clinical trial in China and the reasons her parents came forward. This story was produced in collaboration with Retraction Watch and supported by the Science Fund for Investigative Reporting. Next on the show, Producer Meagan Cantwell talks with Evan McKenzie, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, about an insect that evolved to avoid predators by modifying its respiratory system to withstand high pressure at depth. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. Image credit: Daria Lada Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

First up on the podcast, freelance science journalist Brendan Borrell talks about his work reporting on the previously undisclosed death of a 6-year-old girl in a gene-editing clinical trial in China and the reasons her parents came forward. This story was produced in collaboration with Retraction Watch and supported by the Science Fund for Investigative Reporting. Next on the show, Producer Meagan Cantwell talks with Evan McKenzie, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, about an insect that evolved to avoid predators by modifying its respiratory system to withstand high pressure at depth. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. Image credit: Daria Lada Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send a text message to the show!For all its ease and speed, disproportionality analysis can be distorted by many biases, making it easy to misuse and misinterpret. Michele Fusaroli from Uppsala Monitoring Centre and Eugene van Puijenbroek from the Netherlands pharmacovigilance centre Lareb explain why we shouldn't abuse this powerful but fragile tool.Tune in to find out:Why we should never treat disproportionality signals as verdictsHow poorly performed analyses affect scientists, regulators and patientsHow to avoid the most common sources of bias Want to know more?Michele and Eugene's paper in Drug Safety is a concrete guide to charting and sidestepping the pitfalls of disproportionality analysis.In another Drug Safety paper, Michele and colleagues show how directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) can help map and address biases in disproportionality analysis.Michele also reviewed the method's limitations in Uppsala Reports, where he argues that ‘pharmacovigilance must move past crude disproportionality'.Last year, Retraction Watch covered the spike in pharmacovigilance studies in the literature and why some journals decided to ban drug safety database papers.Previously on Drug Safety Matters, Michele and Daniele Sartori discussed the READUS-PV guidelines for reporting disproportionality analyses.In 2016, the IMI PROTECT project published recommendations to improve signal detection practices, especially for quantitative methods like disproportionality analysis.UMC's guidebook on signal detection in small datasets offers step-by-step advice for qualitative methods and manual case review.Got a story to share?We're always looking for new topics and interesting voices. If you have an idea or any other feedback for the show, get in touch!About UMCUppsala Monitoring Centre promotes safer use of medicines and vaccines for everyone everywhere. Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, X, and Bluesky.

Part 1:We talk with Michael Beckel, of the Corruption Chronicles.We discuss the various levels of corruption in the administration, and how this affects us all. IssueOne.org is an organization that is building consensus to reduce the influence of money in politics.Part 2:We talk with Ivan Oransky, a physician, medical researcher, and journalist, founder of Retraction Watch.We discuss how retractions should alert us to new findings, and to the findings of research that was not done correctly. We also discuss the role of whistleblowers.  WNHNFM.ORG  productionMusic: John Pine, "That;s how every empire falls," 2015

Here's another episode that revists a topic we've covered before. A while back, we did an episode on the downsides of cannabis (for example, the risk of psychosis). But of course, a lot of people claim there are medical benefits, too! Not least among them is Donald Trump, who recently re-scheduled cannabis so that it can be studied more for medical purposes.That research is sorely needed. In this episode, we discuss the very uncertain state of our knowledge on medical marijuana.The Science Fictions podcast is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, where you can find Samuel Hughes's excellent new article on “Urban expansion in the age of liberalism”, as discussed in today's episode. That's at worksinprogress.co—which is packed full of other great articles on science, tech, and human progress.Show notes* “Trump expands access to cannabis” (December 2025)* Info from the DEA on drug schedules* The new JAMA review on medical marijuana* Reason article on the 2011 RAND study; Retraction Watch article on the same* Studies on the crime impacts of medical marijuana (increase; neutral; decrease)* Useful 2021 review of the wider societal effects of medical marijuana legalisation* 2020 Arizona “natural experiment” study* Washington Post article on the poor resemblance of “real” marijuana compared to what's allowed for research studies* Survey on the use of cannabis for medical purposesCreditsThe Science Fictions podcast is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

We've covered a lot of bad science stories over the year. Here are a few more. But in the optimistic spirit of the “holiday season”, the last one has a happy ending. Thanks for listening—especially if you're a subscriber! See you in 2026.Stuart & TomShow notes* A surge of low-quality AI papers on public datasets* A surge of low-quality AI letters to the editor* Retraction Watch story on the Dana Farber scandal* NY Times story on the papers being retracted or corrected* The settlement in the case CreditsThe Science Fictions podcast is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

We've got some listener feedback about the popularity of lie detectors in Ukraine, and in TWISH we hear about the man behind the number, Amedeo Avogadro. Of course, we then get into this week's news:NORWAY: Russian disinformation regarding made up ecological catastropheRUSSIA / EU: Putin's disinformation efforts are changing for the worseGLOBAL: COVID Vaccines saved 2.5 Million lives in the first 4 years of the pandemicUK: Has the government learned the lessons from the Southport riots?UK: Funding to promote anti-LGBT conversion practices surgesINTERNATIONAL: Happy 15th anniversary, Retraction Watch!The Really Wrong award goes to the Swedish fundamentalist evangelical Genesis organisation and the Really Right award to Prof. Dan Larhammar for his excellent take down of creationist nonsense.Enjoy!https://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/theesp-ep-491.htmlSegments:0:00:27 Intro0:00:50 Greetings0:08:06 TWISH0:24:29 News0:53:34 Really Wrong / Really Right0:59:19 Quote1:01:16 Outro1:02:39 Outtakes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

RETRACTED // In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss retraction, the process of removing articles from the scientific record. How often is it due to fraud? How many papers get retracted—and is the number increasing? Is it good or bad for a scientist to retract an article? // RETRACTEDWant even more podcasts? Now our sponsor, Works in Progress magazine, has a podcast where their editors talk to people with interesting progress-related ideas. One such person is the historian Anton Howes, who is interviewed about the unexpected origins of the Industrial Revolution in the latest episode. Find it at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* Retraction Watch, the extremely useful website that tracks and investigates retractions* Science's writeup of the long process of retracting the GFAJ-1 “arsenic bacteria” paper* Original paper; retraction note; response from the authors* The first known retraction, from 1755* Retraction Watch's discussion of it* Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky on tracking retractions over time* 2022 PLOS ONE article on the number of retractions over time* Scholarly Kitchen post on the rate of retractions over time* Nature article on the 10,000 retractions in 2023 alone* 2011 article on the causes of retractions* 2012 article on the same: misconduct is found to account for the biggest proportion* James Heathers on the disastrous story of Wiley buying Hindawi* The retraction guidelines from COPE* The paper with a diagram of a very well-endowed rat* Are authors punished for retractions? Not necessarily* Reputational advantage from correcting errors* 2022 article on how scientists still regularly cite retracted papers (without knowing they're retracted)CreditsWe're very grateful to Ivan Oransky from Retraction Watch for his help with this episode. Any mistakes are ours. The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

President Trump recently shared a conspiracy theory that grew out of Q-Anon: Joe Biden was executed in 2020 and replaced by a “soulless, mindless” clone, or actually multiple clones. As the NY Post reported, he did not comment on the conspiracy but instead only shared a Truth Social post from a person with virtually no followers. The post read: “There is no #JoeBiden – executed in 2020. #Biden clones doubles & robotic engineered soulless mindless entities are what you see. >#Democrats don't know the difference.” The popularity of this feeds directly into the ChatGPT prophets, following Q, who believe they have unlocked the secret codes of the universe. Call it sarcasm or trolling, but the fact is that such a post goes a long way to discrediting the entirety of MAGA, i.e., anybody pro-American. Despite this, it is true that the Biden administration did build a fake Oval Office, a set with fake windows and a digital view of the Rose Garden, and they also staged a town hall in 2024 with a friendly audience in order to get clear video of the president “speaking sharply and fluidly in a freewheeling setting.” Perhaps the conspiracy arose from these facts, in the same way that questions about viruses causing distinct diseases devolved into ‘viruses are not real'. Or, perhaps with these facts out in the open it was necessary to associate such undeniable facts with outrageously false narratives about assassinations and clones. Or, maybe it's something else. And if it's all a big troll, why are our leaders wasting time telling jokes that only a couple people find funny. Kash Patel as FBI Director and Dan Bongino acting as Deputy Director both agree that Epstein died by suicide, a reversal of previous claims made by both men. Pam Bondi, AG, has lied repeatedly about releasing the Epstein files. Trump has agreements on Stargate, Palantir, the HHS-NIH next-gen universal vaccine platform, not to mention operation Warp Speed, and is secretly working with Canary Mission and Project Esther to undermine the First Amendment. Now the one man who many felt could get things done, RFK Jr., along with his Make America Healthy Again Commission, has been caught producing a major first-of-its-kind report with flawed or nonexistent references. As one article reported, it was actually written in part by AI. And we know for certain it was written using AI, because telltale “tags” remain in a number of URLs cited in the footnotes—so-called “oaicites,” which references generated by Open AI always contain. Dr. Ivan Oransky, a journalism professor at New York University who runs Retraction Watch, a website that tracks fraud and errors in medical publishing, also said the nature of the discrepancies seems to indicate that they were generated by artificial intelligence.The question of what is real or fake extends beyond the Internet, and right into the heart of everyday life. All of the above works to discredit legitimate conspiracies, threats to liberty, and exposure of the real cause of America's declining health, including drugs, chemicals, stress, and diet. ‘You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain', says Harvey Dent in an iconic line from the Dark Knight. Now the President of exposing fake news has bought into sharing fake news. Trump's Biden Truth Social post follows another post with a black and white image of himself and a caption that reads: “He's on a mission from God & nothing can stop what is coming.” In the background is Pepe the frog; conveniently when the Pepe Coin is back in the news and climbing. But such talk once again reeks of Q-Anon: wait and see, trust the plan, nobody can stop the storm. Trump posted something similar last year, too, along with the slogan WWG1WGA. It seems evident by his actions, and the actions of those around him, that if there was anything “real” about the MAGA movement, it has now been compromised, threatened, bought off, and sold out completely. It's almost as if the same intelligence apparatus behind Q is itself running his social media account, a likely reality considering Trump's recent agreement with Palantir; just as Biden had handlers running his entire administration, not just X - by handlers, we mean a literal politburo. And just like Stalin's government removed people from photographs, including high level members of the party, the Democrat party, along with Trump promoting conspiracies that Biden was executed, is facilitating a sort of changing of history too: Biden is being eliminated from the record - he died, fake sets, fake town halls, pumped full of drugs, has dementia, had no power to run again, only used autopen, etc.  The same thing is happening with the MAHA report, as the 522 references contained many studies, government documents, and articles that “were wrong or don't appear to exist.” Whether they were deleted, or headlines were changed, or researchers wanted no association with MAHA, the result is that few will ever believe, even with an updated report, that poor diet, lack of exercise, stress, overprescribing of drugs and exposure to environmental chemicals cause our poor health. *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-FREE ARCHIVE (w. ads)SUBSCRIPTION ARCHIVEX / TWITTER FACEBOOKMAIN WEBSITECashApp: $rdgable EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

How is Trump's executive order redefining the language permissible in scientific research, and what does it mean for academic freedom? Today, we examine the complexities surrounding scientific research under shifting political landscapes with Ivan Oransky, a seasoned medical journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch. Oransky discusses the implications of President Trump's executive orders and how it has sent ripples throughout the scientific community, causing researchers to reconsider their work amidst existential uncertainties. Oransky explores the nuanced relationship between government funding and scientific inquiry. This episode unpacks the historical precedents of government involvement in research, tracing back to the 1940s, and examines the mounting challenges faced by scientists under the recent policy changes. Oransky provides a critical analysis of how such directives potentially stifle open inquiry and drive talented researchers away, ultimately impacting the future landscape of scientific discovery. In This Episode:Implications of Trump's executive orders on scientific researchHistorical context of government funding in scientific researchThe impact of political climates on scientific inquiry and transparencyChallenges of anticipatory obedience within research communitiesIvan Oransky's insights on sustaining open and rigorous scientific dialogue About Ivan:Ivan Oransky, MD, is the co-founder of Retraction Watch, the Editor in Chief of The Transmitter, and a Distinguished Journalist in Residence at New York University's Carter Journalism Institute, where he teaches medical journalism. He has held leadership positions at Medscape, MedPage Today, Reuters Health, Scientific American, and The Scientist. A former president of the Association of Health Care Journalists from 2017 to 2021, Oransky earned his bachelor's degree from Harvard and an MD from NYU School of Medicine. His contributions to biomedical communication have earned him accolades, including the John P. McGovern Award and commendation from the John Maddox Prize judges for his work at Retraction Watch. Read HXA's newsletter Free the Inquiry: https://heterodoxacademy.substack.com/Follow Ivan on X: https://x.com/ivanoransky  Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

This episode is sponsored by Digital Science, a global leader in AI-driven technology, providing advanced software and data solutions that empower researchers, universities, and organizations across the research ecosystem. Born out of the research community itself, Digital Science was founded by researchers who sought to solve the challenges they were facing. Now Digital Science is dedicated to making open, collaborative, and inclusive research a reality, partnering with academic institutions to provide pioneering AI-powered tools that enhance decision-making, foster innovation, and help shape a future where trusted, collaborative research drives progress for all. Learn more at https://www.digital-science.com/. Today's episode features Caroline Goldsmith, Associate Director, Charleston Hub, who talks with Dr. Leslie McIntosh, Founder, Ripeta, and VP, Research Integrity, Digital Science.  Leslie talks with us about how she defines research integrity, and the major issues she sees currently facing the scholarly communication industry around research integrity.  Leslie dedicates her work to improving research and investigating and reducing mis- and disinformation in science. She founded Ripeta in 2017 to improve research quality and integrity using algorithms which lead in detecting trust markers of research manuscripts. Leslie has given hundreds of talks to the US-NIH, NASA, and World Congress, and her work was the most read Retraction Watch post in 2022.  She also talks about the work being done at Digital Science and the new tool, Dimensions Author Check, which supports publishers with the author verification process.   The video of this interview can be found here: https://youtu.be/x8lA-59Zi08 Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/caroline-goldsmith-94459112/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/leslie-mcintosh/ Keywords: #DigitalScience, #digital, #ResearchTransformation, #Research Quality, #ResearchEthics, #OpenResearch, #ResearchInnovation, #EmergingTechnologies, #AcademicResearch, #DigitalLibrarian, #DigitalLibrary, , #ResearchReliability, #ResearchIntegrity, #PublishingIntegrity, #PoweringResearch, #ScientificMisconduct, #Retractions, #AuthorVerification, #ScienceTalks, #Misinformation, #Disinformation, #knowledge,  #awareness, #efficiency, #innovation, #partnerships, #CommunityEngagement, #collaboration, #scholcomm, #ScholarlyCommunication, #libraries, #librarianship, #LibraryNeeds, #LibraryLove, #ScholarlyPublishing, #AcademicPublishing, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #podcasts

Audio from the 2024 Charleston Conference Leadership Interview Series. Heather Staines, Senior Strategy Consultant, Delta Think interviews Ivan Oransky, Co-Founder, Retraction Watch. Heather and Ivan discuss the founding of Retraction Watch, a nonprofit that publishes daily reports on scientific fraud and misconduct, acting as a watchdog for scientific integrity, and also maintains a retractions database that was recently acquired by Crossref, which makes the data open and provides sustainability. Ivan is the Editor in Chief of The Transmitter, a publication at the Simons Foundation that covers neuroscience for neuroscientists. He is special advisor for policy and strategy in Scientific Publishing and for funding the archive initiatives at the Simons Foundation. For over 20 years, Ivan has taught medical journalism at New York University.  He believes librarians play a critical role in supporting research and publishing and have been instrumental in supporting Retractions Watch's mission. Video of the Interview is available at: https://youtu.be/Lx9iv2f7Plk Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherstaines/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanoransky/ Twitter: Keywords:    #RetractionWatch, #SimonsFoundation, #MedicalJournalism, #Research, #ResearchSupport, #LibrariansInResearch, #ScientificFraud, #Retraction, #RetractionDatabase, #ProfessionalDevelopment, #LibrarianJourney, #LibraryEducation, #InformationAccess, #LibraryCommunity, #libraries, #librarians, #librarycareer, #libraryschool, #librarylove, #LibraryScience, #academic, #AcademicPublishing, #scholcomm, #ScholarlyCommunication, #research, #learning, #learnon, #information, #leaders, #leadership, #2024ChsConf, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers #libraryissues, #libraryneeds,#librarychallenges, #libraryconference #podcast  #LeadershipInterview

Editors at scientific journals are quitting in droves. According to Retraction Watch, a watchdog publication, there have been at least 20 mass resignations since 2023.So, what's going on? If you look closely, you'll notice a common pattern—publishers are cutting back on the number of editors, increasing the number of papers, and charging hefty fees for authors to publish their work.The most recent mass resignation happened at the Journal of Human Evolution at the end of 2024. Both co-editors in chief and the entire editorial board quit, except for one person.What does this mean for the future of scientific publishing? Have these resignations made the big publishers change their ways? Is the strict academic publishing system we know in danger?To answer those questions and more, Ira talks with Dr. Andrea Taylor, former co-editor in chief of the Journal of Human Evolution; and Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch and editor in chief of The Transmitter.Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Quite a few things to dive into this week: the Medici popes, some listener feedback, cool dinosaur tracks and some sad news from France. In TWISH we we have an epiphany and then we go through the news:NORWAY / UK: Who Believes in Alternative Medicine?RUSSIA: Cancer vaccine announced, with no published evidenceUK: Over 40% of cancer patients use complementary and alternative medications while receiving anticancer treatmentINTERNATIONAL: Another year of Retraction Watch being awesome! Want to work for and with them?INTERNATIONAL: Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedoHUNGARY: Viktor Orbán travels to India, posts photo with Ayurvedic guruSeveral Hungarian organizations close to the government signs up with IFTCC who claims that banning conversion therapy is a threat to human rights – can you be more Really Wrong?Enjoy!https://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/theesp-ep-461.htmlSegments:0:00:27 Intro0:00:51 Greetings0:17:18 TWISH0:27:54 News0:57:21 Really Wrong1:04:59 Quote1:06:37 Outro1:07:52 Outtakes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Probably not — the incentives are too strong. But a few reformers are trying. We check in on their progress, in an update to an episode originally published last year. (Part 2 of 2) SOURCES:Max Bazerman, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.Leif Nelson, professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business.Brian Nosek, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director at the Center for Open Science.Ivan Oransky, distinguished journalist-in-residence at New York University, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, and co-founder of Retraction Watch.Joseph Simmons, professor of applied statistics and operations, information, and decisions at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.Uri Simonsohn, professor of behavioral science at Esade Business School.Simine Vazire, professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne and editor-in-chief of Psychological Science. RESOURCES:"How a Scientific Dispute Spiralled Into a Defamation Lawsuit," by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2024)."The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers," by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023)."They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023)."Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science," by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023)."Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles," (Retraction Watch, 2023)."Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers," (Retraction Watch, 2019)."How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009).Lifecycle Journal. EXTRAS:"Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia? (Update)" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Freakonomics Goes to College, Part 1," by Freakonomics Radio (2012).

Dr. Matt Tincani joins Dr. John Borrero and me for the 21st (can you believe it!?!?) installment of the Inside JABA Series on Behavioral Observations. From a research perspective, this Inside JABA episode is by far our most wonkiest one to date. By that I mean we take a deep dive into the area of Open Science Practices. If you're not familiar with the Open Science movement, Matt walks us through the basics. In doing so, we review the lead paper in the fall 2024 issue of JABA that he co-wrote with Drs. Shawn Gilroy and Art Dowdy (see Tincani, Gilroy, and Dowdy, 2024). Of the several Open Science Practices, this paper - and by extension, this episode - focuses on Preregistration. According to Tincani and colleagues, "preregistration entails outlining a research protocol and specifying the study methods and plans for analysis, which are then archived publicly in a repository before conducting the study" (see p. 4). The point of doing this, amongst others, is to increase transparency and reduce criticisms of questionable research practices in Behavior-Analytic research, such as the file drawer effect, dropping participants from analyses, and so on. While these aims sound laudable, when reading this paper, my inner skeptic began formulating a handful of objections to preregistration, such as increasing barriers to conducting research by adding additional steps, "boxing in" the work of researchers to the point if inflexibility, and so on. Both in the paper and on this podcast, Matt walks through these common objections, so if you too are skeptical, give this episode a listen and see if Matt's treatment of these resonate with you. Here are a few resources mentioned in the episode: Tincani, Gilroy, and Dowdy (2024). Extensions of open science for applied behavior analysis: Preregistration for single-case experimental designs. Tincani and Travers (2019). Replication Research, Publication Bias, and Applied Behavior Analysis. Subscribe to JABA here. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Retraction Watch. Rick Kubina, Session 39. Kubina et al. (2017). A Critical Review of Line Graphs in Behavior Analytic Journals.

This month Ivan Oransky joins us to talk about his work as a journalist and advocate for monitoring scientific misconduct.Ivan confesses about his beginnings as a young playwright of the immune systemHe discusses how and why he left medicine to become a journalistIvan's mentors encouraged him to develop by getting experience as a journalist and editorIvan reflects on how his training as a physician was helpful and allowed people to trust himHe stresses how important it is to read in order to develop story-writing skillsIvan explains that curiosity and attention can help to hunt for good storiesHe thinks the trend to ‘weaponization' is central to what's wrong in science and science communication todayHe suggests that going ‘upstream' might help to explain the methodology and not just the results of scienceIvan describes the origins of Retraction Watch and looking for the stories behind the retractionsHe also insists that we need to look upstream to understand what leads to the fraud (or sloppiness) behind the retractionsFinally, learning to say NO is an important skill to keeping focusedIvan mentioned these scientists, writers and institutionsHarvard University : https://www.harvard.edu/The Harvard Crimson https://www.thecrimson.com/Yale University https://www.yale.edu/The Scientist https://www.the-scientist.com/Journal of American Medical Association https://jamanetwork.com/New York University's Carter Journalism Institute https://journalism.nyu.edu/The New York Times https://www.nytimes.comLawrence Altman MD https://www.nytimes.com/by/lawrence-k-altmanGeorge Lundberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_D._Lundberg https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114712/To find out more about Ivan and his work visit these links  at NYU https://journalism.nyu.edu/about-us/profile/ivan-oransky-md/on Twitter/X https://x.com/ivanoranskyRetraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/The Transmitter /Spectrum magazine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_TransmitterIvan's first play about the Immune System (aged 11) https://theoranskyjournal.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/immune-system-play.pdfYou want to support our work ? Buy us a coffee ! ==> https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lonelypipetteTo find out more about Renaud and Jonathan : Twitter : https://twitter.com/LePourpre LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/renaudpourpre/ Twitter : https://twitter.com/Epigenetique LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanweitzman/%20 More about the soundtrack :Music by Amaria - Lovely Swindler https://soundcloud.com/amariamusique/

What's the secret of living to 100? Well, it might be living in a “Blue Zone”: one of the handful of places around the world where there are apparently loads of centenarians. Except, as has been argued recently, Blue Zones might be a load of nonsense.In this epside of The Studies Show, relative spring chickens Tom and Stuart look at some of the recent controversies in demography. Is there a limit to the human lifespan? Did someone really live 122 years? And how could researchers not have noticed the glaring problems with the whole idea of Blue Zones?The Studies Show is brought to you by our new sponsor: Semafor. They're a purveyor of high-quality newsletters offering in-depth information in digestible chunks (and they happen to be Tom's employer). This week, we looked at Semafor Technology, in which Reed Albergotti interviewed will.i.am on AI and the future of music.Show notes* “Millions Now Living Will Never Die”* Nature paper on “Evidence for limits to the human lifespan”* Stuart's response letter* Saul Newman's critique* Guardian article and Retraction Watch article on the resulting controversy* 2020 New Yorker article on Jeanne Calment, the 122-year-old woman* 2004 paper on “Blue Zones”; 2013 paper* Blue Zones website and “Live to 100” cookbook* Blue Zones food guidelines* Saul Newman's paper (2024 version) critiquing Blue Zones and supercentenarian research* Saul Newman wins the Ig Nobel PrizeCredits* The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

A record 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023. In this episode from February 2024, Ian Sample speaks to Ivan Oransky, whose organisation Retraction Watch has been monitoring the growing numbers of retractions for more than a decade, and hears from blogger Sholto David, who made headlines this year when he spotted mistakes in research from a leading US cancer institute. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

What's the point of evidence? It's to gain knowledge, so that we can treat our patients better. But what happens when the data is wrong, faked, misleading, or simply made up? Retraction Watch (www.retractionwatch.com, and @retractionwatch) collates retractions from journals around the world. Their database makes terrifying reading: tens of […]

Show Notes: In this conversation with Will Bachman, Ivan Oransky, a co-founder of Retraction Watch, shares his experience as a medical journalist and with Retraction Watch. Ivan explains that his friend and co-founder, Adam Marcus had uncovered a massive story about scientific fraud in Western Massachusetts, where an anesthesiologist had made up all clinical data. Adam, who was managing editor of an publication called Anesthesiology News got the scoop on the story, and Ivan, who was impressed with the story, suggested they start a blog about retraction notices, it turned out there were far more happening than previously thought.  13 and a half years later, Retraction Watch is still going strong and has a large audience. Adam and Ivan are volunteers but have four staff two of whom run a database of retractions that was recently acquired by CrossRef, a nonprofit that tracks scientific data and papers. The other two staff continue to contribute to the journalism work they started 13 and a half years ago, while Ivan and Adam still supervisor edit and direct it. How to Evaluate an Article Ivan shares his advice on how to evaluate an article in a medical journal or any published article. He emphasizes the importance of showing one's work and examining the evidence used to reach a conclusion. He explains that, when looking at articles, it is crucial to consider the original sources, citations, and the journal's track record of quality. He also emphasizes the importance of humility in making claims and not making pronouncements about things he or she doesn't know anything about. He also warns against trusting credentials to suggest expertise, as it can be misleading, Ivan shares the example of a time when he was asked to peer review papers about COVID-19, simply because he had co-authored a letter about retractions of work. However, he is not an expert on the subject. Ivan believes that an expert should only be asked to peer review papers that they believe are likely to hold up or should not be published.  Leading Causes of Retraction Ivan explains that factors that commonly lead to a retraction. Two-thirds of retractions are for misconduct. This number is consistent across various works and he goes on to explain that there are several definitions of misconduct to take into consideration, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. About 20 percent of the time, it's due to a what's known as honest error, and Ivan offers a few examples.  The deeper cause is the requirement that researchers must publish in certain places to get a job in academia, tenure, promotion, and prizes. This drives people to do all sorts of things, and while this drives most people to work harder and try to work more efficiently, others may take a different approach. In fact, Ivan states that 2 percent of researchers admit to committing misconduct.  The Replication Crisis Ivan talks about the replication crisis, which has been a topic of interest in the social sciences and hard sciences. When Retraction Watch was first launched, there were about 400 retractions from journals a year. Last year, there were more than 10,000, a big increase despite the rising number of papers published. The root cause of this issue is the same problem: replications are not new research or findings and should be cherished and prized, but they are not. Big journals don't like to publish replications, so they don't reward new research. To get into a big journal, researchers need to publish new research, which is simple behavioral incentive economics. The discussion turns to incentives for people to write about scientific misconduct and fraud. Ivan states that, while there is more incentive not to write retractions, he cites a page on Retraction Watch that has dozens of stories from people committed to revealing issues with research, including well-known figures. These individuals face legal risks, such as lawsuits, and are usually not paid for this work.  The conversation also touches on the potential negative repercussions of challenging senior professionals in their field, such as professors or presidents of universities. However, most of these individuals do not work in science anymore, or their career trajectory is not dependent on pleasing or failing to displease senior members of academia. These individuals often publish on sites like PubPeer, which allows users to leave comments on published studies. This helps expose the issues and claims in the media, helping to raise awareness and support for those who need help. Retraction Watch offers resources and social media platforms for those interested in learning more about the topic. They welcome feedback and story tips, and they are open to sharing more information about their work. Timestamps: 01:03 Scientific fraud and retractions  04:41 Evaluating credibility in scientific articles and peer review 09:10 Research retractions and the root causes 13:05 Replication crisis in science and the challenges faced by those uncovering fraud 17:18 Academic misconduct and whistleblowers Links: Website: https://retractionwatch.com/ Unleashed is produced by Umbrex, which has a mission of connecting independent management consultants with one another, creating opportunities for members to meet, build relationships, and share lessons learned. Learn more at www.umbrex.com.

If you have a subscription to Spotify, you can now hear this audiobook on Anthony Fauci for free.  

A record 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023. To find out what's driving this trend, Ian Sample speaks to Ivan Oransky, whose organisation Retraction Watch has been monitoring the growing numbers of retractions for more than a decade, and hears from blogger Sholto David, who recently made headlines when he spotted mistakes in research from a leading US cancer institute.. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

للانضمام لمجموعات الحاد بلا حدود https://tinyurl.com/j7p8rfkc listen to our Podcast: https://anchor.fm/s/884f8a34/podcast/rss المصادر حلقات بودكاست فريكينوميكس https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-there-so-much-fraud-in-academia/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-academic-fraud-be-stopped/ اغنية عندما يصبح عمري 64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTunqv1Xt4 “More Than 10,000 Research Papers Were Retracted in 2023 — a New Record,” by Richard Van Noorden (Nature, 2023). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8 “Data Falsificada (Part 1): ‘Clusterfake,'” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2023). https://datacolada.org/109 “Fabricated Data in Research About Honesty. You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Or, Can You?” by Nick Fountain, Jeff Guo, Keith Romer, and Emma Peaslee (Planet Money, 2023). https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data Complicit: How We Enable the Unethical and How to Stop, by Max Bazerman (2022). https://www.amazon.com/Complicit-How-Enable-Unethical-Stop/dp/0691236542?&linkCode=sl1&tag=freakonomic08-20&linkId=d16b392f7748bd9f370780064f5885f5&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl “Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2021). https://datacolada.org/98 “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Psychological Science, 2011). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611417632 “The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers,” by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/business/the-harvard-professor-and-the-bloggers.html “They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie “Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science,” by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.23.568476v1.full.pdf “Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles,” (Retraction Watch, 2023). https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/19/hindawi-reveals-process-for-retracting-more-than-8000-paper-mill-articles/ “Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers,” (Retraction Watch, 2019). https://retractionwatch.com/2019/07/18/exclusive-russian-site-says-it-has-brokered-authorships-for-more-than-10000-researchers/ “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data,” by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

للانضمام لمجموعات الحاد بلا حدود https://tinyurl.com/j7p8rfkc listen to our Podcast: https://anchor.fm/s/884f8a34/podcast/rss المصادر حلقات بودكاست فريكينوميكس https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-there-so-much-fraud-in-academia/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-academic-fraud-be-stopped/ اغنية عندما يصبح عمري 64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTunqv1Xt4 “More Than 10,000 Research Papers Were Retracted in 2023 — a New Record,” by Richard Van Noorden (Nature, 2023). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8 “Data Falsificada (Part 1): ‘Clusterfake,'” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2023). https://datacolada.org/109 “Fabricated Data in Research About Honesty. You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Or, Can You?” by Nick Fountain, Jeff Guo, Keith Romer, and Emma Peaslee (Planet Money, 2023). https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data Complicit: How We Enable the Unethical and How to Stop, by Max Bazerman (2022). https://www.amazon.com/Complicit-How-Enable-Unethical-Stop/dp/0691236542?&linkCode=sl1&tag=freakonomic08-20&linkId=d16b392f7748bd9f370780064f5885f5&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl “Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2021). https://datacolada.org/98 “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Psychological Science, 2011). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611417632 “The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers,” by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/business/the-harvard-professor-and-the-bloggers.html “They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie “Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science,” by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.23.568476v1.full.pdf “Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles,” (Retraction Watch, 2023). https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/19/hindawi-reveals-process-for-retracting-more-than-8000-paper-mill-articles/ “Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers,” (Retraction Watch, 2019). https://retractionwatch.com/2019/07/18/exclusive-russian-site-says-it-has-brokered-authorships-for-more-than-10000-researchers/ “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data,” by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Investigation shows journal editors getting paid to publish bunk papers, and new techniques for finding tumor DNA in the blood   First up on this week's episode, Frederik Joelving, an editor and reporter for the site Retraction Watch, talks with host Sarah Crespi about paper mills—organizations that sell authorship on research papers—that appear to be bribing journal editors to publish bogus articles. They talk about the drivers behind this activity and what publishers can do to stop it.   Next, producer Zakiya Whatley of the Dope Labs podcast talks with researcher Carmen Martin-Alonso, a graduate student in the Harvard–Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program in Health Sciences and Technology, about improving liquid biopsies for cancer. They discuss novel ways to detect tumor DNA circulating in the blood.   This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy.   About the Science Podcast   Authors: Sarah Crespi; Zakiya Whatley; Richard Stone    Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.zahpt8h   About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast

Investigation shows journal editors getting paid to publish bunk papers, and new techniques for finding tumor DNA in the blood   First up on this week's episode, Frederik Joelving, an editor and reporter for the site Retraction Watch, talks with host Sarah Crespi about paper mills—organizations that sell authorship on research papers—that appear to be bribing journal editors to publish bogus articles. They talk about the drivers behind this activity and what publishers can do to stop it.   Next, producer Zakiya Whatley of the Dope Labs podcast talks with researcher Carmen Martin-Alonso, a graduate student in the Harvard–Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program in Health Sciences and Technology, about improving liquid biopsies for cancer. They discuss novel ways to detect tumor DNA circulating in the blood.   This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy.   About the Science Podcast   Authors: Sarah Crespi; Zakiya Whatley; Richard Stone    Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.zahpt8h   About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast

Probably not — the incentives are too strong. Scholarly publishing is a $28 billion global industry, with misconduct at every level. But a few reformers are gaining ground.   (Part 2 of 2) SOURCES:Max Bazerman, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.Leif Nelson, professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business.Brian Nosek, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director at the Center for Open Science.Ivan Oransky, distinguished journalist-in-residence at New York University, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, and co-founder of Retraction Watch.Joseph Simmons, professor of applied statistics and operations, information, and decisions at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.Uri Simonsohn, professor of behavioral science at Esade Business School.Simine Vazire, professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne and editor-in-chief of Psychological Science. RESOURCES:"The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers," by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023)."They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023)."Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science," by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023)."Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles," (Retraction Watch, 2023)."Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers," (Retraction Watch, 2019)."How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009). EXTRAS:"Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Freakonomics Goes to College, Part 1," by Freakonomics Radio (2012).

Stuart Buck has referred to himself as a venture capitalist for making science more efficient, reliable, and accountable. As vice president at the policy-focused philanthropy Arnold Ventures, he directed funds toward fledgling enterprises that are now major forces shaping scientific norms and infrastructure, including the Center for Open Science and Retraction Watch. He's now executive director of the Good Science Project, a nonprofit organization working to figure out effective ways to improve science. Buck considers how to make sure that reforms are actually improvements, not performative busywork. He explores what sorts of entities are required to push for positive change in science and still respect the different cultures and practices in various countries and disciplines. It's not enough to assess scientific practices, he argues; there needs to be a built-in way to assess scientific reforms, including the relative costs and benefits of increasingly popular policies like sharing data and promoting transparency. In this context, Buck joins host Monya Baker to discuss how metascience—the study of science—has fueled reform, and how to make sure reforms produce the desired effects. Resources: Stuart Buck's recent essay on his work at Arnold Ventures: “Metascience Since 2012: A Personal History” Stuart Buck, “Beware performative reproducibility,” Nature (July 6, 2021)

Annika has been to the esoteric fair and gives a report and dowsing is apparently used by employees at Scottish Water. In TWISH we celebrate the International Day of Democracy, and boy do we need it. And then there is the news: INTERNATIONAL: Toddlers can reason! SWEDEN / UK: Believing in personal gut feelings and falling for conspiracy theories GERMANY: New developments regarding Satanic Panic SWEDEN: Pontus Pokes the Politicians: Thousands marching against mandatory reporting of paperless persons CrossRef and Retraction Watch do great work and for that they share this week's award for being Really Right. Enjoy! Segments: Intro; Greetings; TWISH; News; Really Right; Quote And Farewell; Outro; Out-Takes

We have a new podcast! It's called Universe Of Art, and it features conversations with artists who use science to bring their creations to the next level. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.    A See-Through Squid Success Story Adult octopuses have about 500 million neurons, which is about as many neurons as a dog. Typically, more neurons means a more intelligent and complex creature. But it's a bit more complicated than that. Unlike dogs, or even humans, octopuses' neurons aren't concentrated in their brains—they're spread out through their bodies and into their arms and suckers, more like a “distributed” mind. (Scientists still haven't quite figured out exactly why this is.) And that's just the tip of the iceberg, in terms of unanswered cephalopod questions. Now, researchers have successfully bred a line of albino squid that were first engineered using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, creating a see-through squid. Their unique transparency allows scientists to more easily study their neural structure, and a whole lot more. SciFri experiences manager Diana Plasker talks with Joshua Rosenthal, senior scientist at the University of Chicago's Marine Biological Laboratory, based in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, about this see-through squid success story. When Eye-Grabbing Results Just Don't Pan Out You know the feeling — you see a headline in the paper or get an alert on your phone about a big scientific breakthrough that has the potential to really change things. But then, not much happens, or that news turns out to be much less significant than the headlines made it seem. Journalists are partially to blame for this phenomenon. But another guilty culprit is also the scientific journals, and the researchers who try to make their own work seem more significant than the data really supports in order to get published. Armin Alaedini, an assistant professor of medical sciences at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, recently co-authored a commentary on this topic published in The American Journal of Medicine. He joins Ira and Ivan Oransky — co-founder of Retraction Watch and a medical journalism professor and Distinguished Writer In Residence at New York University — to talk about the tangled world of scientific publishing and the factors that drive inflated claims in publications.     How Art Can Help Treat Dementia And Trauma We might intrinsically know that engaging with and making art is good for us in some way. But now, scientists have much more evidence to support this, thanks in part to a relatively new field called neuroaesthetics, which studies the effects that artistic experiences have on the brain. A new book called Your Brain On Art: How The Arts Transform Us, dives into that research, and it turns out the benefits of the arts go far beyond elevating everyday life; they're now being used as part of healthcare treatments to address conditions like dementia and trauma. Universe of Art host D. Peterschmidt sits down with the authors of the book, Susan Magsamen, executive director of the International Arts + Mind Lab at the Pederson Brain Science Institute at Johns Hopkins University, and Ivy Ross, vice president of design for hardware products at Google, to talk about what we can learn from neuroaesthetic studies, the benefits of a daily arts practice, and the kinds of art they both like making.   Testing Mars Rovers In Utah's Red Desert Take a 20-minute drive down Cow Dung Road, outside of Hanksville, Utah, and you'll stumble across the Mars Desert Research Station. This cluster of white buildings—webbed together by a series of covered walkways—looks a little alien, as does the red, desolate landscape that surrounds it. “The ground has this crust that you puncture through, and it makes you feel like your footprints are going to be there for a thousand years,” said Sam Craven, a senior leading the Brigham Young University team here for the University Rover Challenge. “Very bleak and dry, but very beautiful also.” This remote chunk of Utah is a Mars analogue, one of roughly a dozen locations on Earth researchers use to test equipment, train astronauts and search for clues to inform the search for life on other planets. While deployed at the station, visiting scientists live in total isolation and don mock space suits before they venture outside. To read the rest, visit sciencefriday.com.   To stay updated on all-things-science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters. Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.  

Dear Esteemed Academic, we're reaching out to you as an eminent scholar in your field! This week we talk with Dr. John Chenault, PhD, MA, MSLS who is a former medical librarian and currently Associate Professor & Director of Anti-Racism Initiatives in Undergraduate Medical Education at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. We discuss predatory publishing, which is an exploitative practice that charges authors to publish scholarly journal articles without providing important publishing services like peer review. Dr. Chenault suggests that listeners can work with librarians to identify such exploitative journals before publishing, and he describes resources that faculty can use to help identify predatory publishers. After listening to this episode, Dr. Chenault calls for listeners to be mindful of this industry and its negative impact to our profession. Learn more about predatory publishing with Retraction Watch, the Predatory Publishing blog, and see if your university has access to Cabell's International. Also check out John's previous Faculty Feed episodes on anti-racism in medical education and the crisis in biomedical publishing. Do you have comments or questions about Faculty Feed? Contact us at FacFeed@louisville.edu. We look forward to hearing from you.

Academia depends on the publishing world to disseminate scholarly work, but the current model is facing significant challenges. This week we talk with Dr. John Chenault, PhD, MA, MSLS, who is Associate Professor and the Director of Anti-Racism Initiatives at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Dr. Chenault is a former medical librarian, and we discuss both long-standing and emerging issues in biomedical research publishing. Dr. Chenault describes how research outcomes can be erroneous or deliberately falsified, and he suggests that more transparency—rather than our current system of peer review—will be needed to address emerging issues in plagiarism and post-production fabrication. Learn more about the work that Dr. Chenault describes by Freedman and the Global Biological Standards Institute as well as the Retraction Watch and PubPeer resources to help faculty evaluate published literature. Do you have comments or questions about Faculty Feed? Contact us at FacFeed@louisville.edu. We look forward to hearing from you.

Known online as The Liver Doctor, he's a crusader against quackery of all sorts. Cyriac Abby Philips joins Amit Varma in episode 310 of The Seen and the Unseen to describe his journey to becoming a doctor-scientist, the breakthroughs in his field, what he has learnt as a physician -- and the dangers of 'alternative medicine.' (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. Abby Philips on Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Google Scholar, Rajagiri Hospital and The Morning Context. 2. The Dark Side of Indian Pharma -- Episode 245 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Dinesh Thakur). 3. The Practice of Medicine -- Episode 229 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Lancelot Pinto). 4. Understanding Indian Healthcare -- Episode 225 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 5. Beware of Quacks. Alternative Medicine is Injurious to Health -- Amit Varma. 6. Homeopathic Faith -- Amit Varma. 7. Bad Science -- Ben Goldacre. 8. Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial -- Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst. 9. Homeopathy, quackery and fraud -- James Randi. 10. Why We Sleep — Matthew Walker. 11. Doctor, heal thyself -- Suresh K Pandey and Vidushi Sharma on the shorter life expectancy of doctors in India. 12. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart — Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M Todd and the ABC Research Group on ‘fast and frugal heuristics'). 13. The Medical Council of India -- Episode 8 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Pavan Srinath). 14. Abby Philips's tweet about how cirrhosis can be reversed. 15. A Phase 3 Trial of Pirfenidone in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis -- Various authors for the ASCEND study group. 16. Repurposing Pirfenidone for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis-related Cirrhosis: A Case Series -- Cyriac Abby Philips and others. 17. Regression of Human Cirrhosis: Morphologic Features and the Genesis of Incomplete Septal Cirrhosis -- Ian R Wanless, Eisuke Nakashima and Morris Sherman. 18. Reversal of Liver Cirrhosis: A Desirable Clinical Outcome and Its Pathogenic Background -- Flavia Bortolotti and Maria Guido. 19. Ignaz Semmelweis on Britannica and Wikipedia. 20. The Diabetes Code -- Jason Fung. 21. The perfect treatment for diabetes and weight loss -- Interview of Jason Fung. 22. Intestinal microbiota contributes to individual susceptibility to alcoholic liver disease -- M Llopis and others. 23. Fecal microbiota manipulation prevents dysbiosis and alcohol-induced liver injury in mice -- Gladys Ferrere and others. 24. Some of Abby Philips's papers on stool transplants: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 25. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Karthik Muralidharan: 1, 2, 3. 26. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ajay Shah: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 27. Fecal enema as an adjunct in the treatment of pseudomembranous enterocolitis -- Ben Eiseman and others. 28. Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile -- Els van Nood and others. 29. There is no safe level of alcohol consumption -- Abby Philips. 30. The Case Against Sugar — Gary Taubes. 31. The Big Fat Surprise — Nina Teicholz. 32. The Obesity Code — Jason Fung. 33. Priyanka Pulla on Twitter and LinkedIn. 34. Abby Philips and Krish Ashok's Instagram post on Ayurveda. 35. Edzard Ernst on Twitter and his own website. 36. The studies on nanoparticles in homeopathy from IIT Bombay and Belgium. 37. Parents guilty of manslaughter over daughter's eczema death -- Harriet Alexander. 38. Never Talk About TURMERIC on Social Media -- Abby Philips. 39. Abby Philips's video on Arsenic Album. 40. Clinical outcomes, histopathological patterns, and chemical analysis of Ayurveda and herbal medicine associated with severe liver injury -- Abby Philips and others. 41. Abby Philips's paper on Herbalife products causing fatal acute liver failure. 42. Paper about Herbalife®-related patient death removed after company threatens to sue the journal -- Elizabeth Bik. (Also, her tweets: 1, 2.) 43. Retraction Watch on the controversy. 44. The Jaslok study on the harmful effects of Giloy, commonly used in Ayurveda. 45. Subsequent studies on the harm that Giloy does from New Delhi, Ahmedabad, Delhi again, Delhi one more time, Lucknow, Mumbai and a large multicenter study. 46. As COVID Surged, India Had a Silent Outbreak of Giloy-Induced Liver Injury -- Banjot Kaur. 47. Blankets -- Craig Thompson. 48. Rosalie Lightning: A Graphic Memoir -- Tom Hart. 49. Robot Dreams -- Sara Varon. 50. The Complete Maus -- Art Spiegelman. 51. Bone -- Jeff Smith. 52. V For Vendetta -- Alan Moore and David Lloyd. 53. Cinema Paradiso -- Giuseppe Tornatore. 54. Tigertail -- Alan Yang. 55. The Town -- Ben Affleck. 56. I Saw the Devil -- Jee-woon Kim. 57. The Roundup -- Lee Sang-yong. 58. Memories of Murder -- Bong Joon-ho. 59. The Night Of and True Detective. 60. Pink Floyd, Def Leppard and Metallica on Spotify. 61. Bon Jovi, Manowar and Savatage on Spotify. 62. Sleep -- Savatage. 63. The Police, Sting, Cyndi Lauper and Imagine Dragons on Spotify. 64. The master thread by Abby Philips of his Twitter mega threads. This episode is sponsored by MapMyGenome. Use the code UNSEEN to get 25% off all their products, especially MedicaMap. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘The Good Doctor' by Simahina.

Today we are talking about the academic scientific peer review process, which ordinarily involves a journal sending a submitted paper out to other experts for assessment before they decide to publish the article, something which has become part of the normal process for and sign of a quality academic scientific journal.This subject is increasingly important as more and more high-profile and impactful research articles are being retracted or placed under editorial “notices of concern” both in Australia and overseas. To learn more, Cosmos journalist Clare Kenyon talks to Dr Ivan Oransky, an acclaimed journalist and one of the creators of Retraction Watch, a site and database which collates, lists and discusses retractions and editorial notes of concern placed on peer-review journal article publications, and also Dr Elisabeth Bik, a Dutch-US microbiologist and image consultant especially renowned for her ability to detect image duplication and manipulation.”Find the science of everything at the Cosmos Magazine website Subscribe to Cosmos Magazine (print) or the Cosmos WeeklyWatch and listen to all our Cosmos BriefingsSpecial 10% discount on Cosmos magazine print subscriptions (1 or 2 year), or 1 year Cosmos Weekly subscriptions for Cosmos Briefing podcast listeners!  Use coupon code COSMOSPOD in our shop. 

The Filtrate:Joel TopfSwapnil HiremathJosh WaitzmanSophia AmbrusoSpecial Guests:Boback Ziaeian @boback Assistant Professor of Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. His Google Schoolar page is better than yours. And returning for her third time (why sdo we keep inviting her back?)Sadiya Khan @heartDocSadiya Assistant Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventative Medicine at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine. LinkEditor: Sophia AmbrusoDonate to NephJCGet your Freely Filtered Mug by becoming a Freely Filtered Fan, all proceeds go to NephJC. All donations are tax deductible in the U.S.http://www.nephjc.com/new-products/freely-filtered-fanIf you want to support NephJC to a different tune than $200, take a look at the NephJC September Pledge Drive page. Show Notes:2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure says:Restricting dietary sodium is a common nonpharmacological treatment for patients with HF symptomatic with congestion, but specific recommendations have been based on low-quality evidence. Concerns about the quality of data regarding clinical benefits or harm of sodium restriction in patients with HF include the lack of current pharmacological therapy, small samples without sufficient racial and ethnic diversity, questions about the correct threshold for clinical benefit, uncertainty about which subgroups benefit most from sodium restriction, and serious questions about the validity of several RCTs in this area. However, there are promising pilot trials of sodium restriction in patients with HF. The AHA currently recommends a reduction of sodium intake to

Episode 88 of our book read/podcast covering major topics in various fields of psychology moves us into RESEARCH METHODS! New open-source book and a split semester, with Interviews and discussions on as many types of research types as we can fit in. Lots of warnings for this episode. Part 1 ends around the 30 minute mark, then we discuss some less savory research. In this episode we get back to Retraction Watch! Our dive into the world of retractions and unethical behaviors in science. This episode Thomas brings some spicy takes on Zoophile research and Daniel discusses the wild accusations against a concussion researcher in Exercise Sport Sciences. Articles: https://retractionwatch.com/2022/02/28/this-is-frankly-insulting-an-author-plagiarized-by-a-journal-editor-speaks/ https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/02/was-leading-sports-medicine-researchers-plagiarism-an-isolated-and-unfortunate-incident/ https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/04/sports-medicine-researcher-paul-mccrory-requests-another-retraction/ https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/05/concussion-researcher-claims-afl-hindered-two-year-research-project-into-players-health Textbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/75 PSD Website: https://psychosocialdistancingpodcast.com/ Thomas' Webpage: https://sexography.org/ Thomas' Twitter: https://twitter.com/TBrooks_SexPsy Daniel's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScienceInChaos Bias of the Week: Continued Influence Effect https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3r_CNg_MuRKbi_oJYVRth7dAMW2nNiS/view?usp=sharing

In this episode, Dr. Dawn is in conversation with Dr. Elisabeth Bik and Dr. Ivan Oransky. Dr. Elisabeth Bik is a microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant who has worked to call out fraudulent scientific papers. She became renowned in her fight against the bad science behind hydroxychloroquine as an effective therapy against COVID-19 that resulted in a global Twitter assault. Dr. Ivan Oransky is an accomplished journalist, editor, and educator who founded Retraction Watch, the world's only aggregated database of scientific retraction. In this episode, our guests take a moral stance on science - and tell us… What Does It Profit? This episode has been produced as part of Whistling at the Fake, a global business ethics research project funded by NATO's Public Diplomacy Division as part of its resilience projects. The project aims at addressing the gap of citizen comprehension of the forms, means, and impacts of misinformation and disinformation, and empowering the general public with the tools through which to identify fake news, including appropriate responses to such behaviors. The project focuses on the crucial role whistleblowers and other knowledgeable insiders play in exposing misleading and hostile information activities and increasing public resilience to acts of this nature.

Episode 82 of our book read/podcast covering major topics in various fields of psychology moves us into RESEARCH METHODS! New open-source book and a split semester, with Interviews and discussions on as many types of research types as we can fit in, along with every other episode as PSD with a Twist! (It's a cocktail pun!). In this episode Thomas and Daniel do PSD with a Twist but with no twist, we delve into the annals of Retraction Watch and discuss some of our favorite ethical dilemmas of the month. Its Ethics all the way down. Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com/ Textbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/75 PSD Website: https://psychosocialdistancingpodcast.com/ Thomas' Webpage: https://sexography.org/ Thomas' Twitter: https://twitter.com/TBrooks_SexPsy Daniel's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScienceInChaos Bias of the Week: News Media Bias https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3r_CNg_MuRKbi_oJYVRth7dAMW2nNiS/view?usp=sharing

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 78 of our book read/podcast covering major topics in various fields of psychology moves us into RESEARCH METHODS! New open-source book and a split semester, with Interviews and discussions on as many types of research types as we can fit in, along with every other episode as PSD with a Twist! (It's a cocktail pun!). In this episode we do An Intro to PSD with a Twist! With Andrew Tague, now a 5 time guest! We delve into our favorite topic…more unethical research and more. PSD with a twist has us enjoying a mixed beverage and discussing research while musing and debating on the next steps or the next possible study that could be done. Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com Articles and Unethical Stuff: Hormones and Voting: https://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/25/psychological-science-in-the-news-again-cnn-retracts-story-on-hormone-voting-link/ Predicting Death Research: https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/07/journal-pulls-plug-on-paper-that-predicts-persons-death-against-authors-objections/ Bigfoot Retraction: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/04/14/bigfoot-paper-corrected-because-it-doesnt-exist-the-authors-institution-that-is/ JAMA Perception of Kid's Behavior: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2787966 Ivermectin Study Concerns: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data Textbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/75 PSD Website: https://psychosocialdistancingpodcast.com/ Thomas' Webpage: https://sexography.org/ Thomas' Twitter: https://twitter.com/TBrooks_SexPsy Daniel's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScienceInChaos Bias of the Week: Observer-Expectancy Effect https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3r_CNg_MuRKbi_oJYVRth7dAMW2nNiS/view?usp=sharing

Alison McCook is a veteran science journalist for Reuters, Scientific American, Discover, Nature, Science, and Retraction Watch, as well as a regular columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. She takes us inside the winding science and public health road that we've taken on Covid in recent months, explains where science and public communication have gotten out of sync, and looks ahead at where we might be going next.

Retractions of scientific papers happen for a number of reasons. The desperation driving COVID-19 research has brought this “nuclear option” of scientific correction to a much more public sphere. Dr. Ivan Oransky, who co-runs Retraction Watch, talks with Stephanie Desmon about what retractions typically mean—and don't mean—and how COVID-19 may incite an “existential crisis” in the scientific research community in the push to publish.