Also this week: Son of the Return of the Ecology Blogosphere (Part II), and more.
From Jeremy:
The EEB and Flow is back! The return of the ecology blogosphere continues apace.
Voyager I, back from the (near) dead.
Another retraction for Jonathan Pruitt, this one from PNAS. Pruitt’s co-authors requested the retraction in Feb. 2020, a month after the #pruittdata scandal broke. PNAS slapped an Expression of Concern on the paper in May 2020, which I suppose might help explain why they only just got around to retracting it. For most practical purposes, a Jonathan Pruitt paper with an EoC already is retracted. To be clear, I think PNAS could and should have retracted years ago. But given that they did slap an EoC on the paper pretty promptly, I’m not all that bothered that the retraction took so long.
I refuse to link to the story about the ex-lab tech turned Tik Tok science influencer with the on-the-nose screen name who faked a bunch of data. Just no. I wish I could unlearn this story’s existence.
Dynamic Ecology 
I just finished reading “Calling Bullshit” by Bergstrom and West. I like it. For one thing, I learned what palter means (a word i’ve used substitute phrases for my whole life). Much of the book would be familiar stuff to you and readers, but still fun to see how data is manipulated. Several points I liked:
Bullshit is usually in the data or inferences drawn, not the analysis (“black box”)
An implicature describes what a sentence is being used to mean, rather than what it means literally. (“There’s a dinner down the block” has much more meaning than the words).
Review of the prosecuter’s falacy (you must love that one Jeremy)
And my favorite — because it makes so much sense but I never thought about it: how News presentation of science is a “collection of facts” approach, vs how science works by accumulating data, and then how our current reach for publicity (like university press releases) fuel this problem that undermines science.
I thought this relates to many of your themes Jeremy.
But I have a like-hate relationship with it. I really don’t like it when books have lousy referencing. This book has one long list of references for each chapter. So you can’t look up citations for given points — rather lousy for a book that argues for transparency.
Thanks for the tip, Scott.