HARKing to meet editorial standards?

Sometimes when you mark papers about papers, you have to read the latter, continued: now reading a fine paper by Du, Leten & VanHaverbeke, “Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners”, in the journal Research Policy. Like most papers in this esteemed journal, the present one includes a clear statement of hypotheses. These hypotheses are then subjected to empirical tests. Continue reading

Advertisements

Transformational leadership education

Attention conservation notice: nerdish.

Marking papers about papers, sometimes one needs to read the latter. So I’ve just read Tourish, Craig & Amernic’s paper “Transformational Leadership Education and Agency Perspectives in Business School Pedagogy” (British Journal of Management 2010). Everything grim they say about transformational leadership and the cult of the rock strar CEO and the role of business schools in promoting and legitimating it is, I think, correct. What they miss Continue reading

Email from Ouaga, plus Charlottesville

This morning my friend Sabrina, in Bukima Faso for work on sustainable irrigation, circulated this by email:

the horrible terrorist attacks took place in a hotel less than a km away.

I am fine, and have been advised not to go out today, as the office is near an area that was cordoned off for a search for perpetrators.

It’s strange to be here in this situation – I am for now confined, but to a calm and lovely guest house, surrounded by trees and birdsong, and yet so close by, there was such unspeakable carnage. Continue reading

Grading their own work

We had nothing to do with it – we hired somebody else to do it, that was the claim. Retraction Watch points me to this article by Peter Waldman, Tiffany Stecker, and Joel Rosenblatt for Bloomberg – it includes this nugget:

Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But that was the extent of Monsanto’s involvement, the main article said. “The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company,” according to the review’s Declaration of Interest statement. “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

Which aleady sounds bad, not an independent review at all, since they bought & paid for it. But – spoiler alert – it turns out their own staff had editorial control all along.