Skip to Content

Posts tagged with "The Scientific Literature"

  • The Scientific Literature

    Make Sure That’s What You Want to Say

    You want to be careful when you add comments to manuscripts, you know. Sometimes your patent application will publish with all the legal back-and-forthing still in it. (There was an even more egregious example of this in an electronics patent application about ten years ago, but I’m having trouble putting my hands on it – Read More
  • The Dark Side

    Scam, Scam, Scam, Scam, Scammity Scam, Wonderful Scam

    You know, it’s really hard to explain just how ridiculous the bottom end of the scientific publishing world is. I’ve mentioned formerly reputable journals that now want you to wire money to a bank account in the Turks and Caicos Islands and long lists of people who will “review” and “publish” outright gibberish a… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    This Took Fourteen Months

    Readers will remember the “nanorod paper” controversy from last year – two papers were published from the Pease group at Utah on the fabrication of a type of nanostructure, but the images therein were pretty clearly fabricated themselves, especially the paper in Nano Letters. That one looked like it had been done by a fourth-grade… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    Publish On Sight

    This paper is probably fine. But its subject matter is editor-bait if I’ve ever seen it: ionic liquids on the surface of carbon nanotubes. If they can get a fluorescent glowing BODIPY-laced sample in the graphical abstract as well, the world is theirs. Read More
  • Biological News

    Down With the Western Blot?

    A reader sends along a thought that touches on a lot of the publication scandals that have happened in molecular biology over the years. A very common feature of these is manipulation of Western blots (see that graphic the other day on the Sarkar case, assembled by a reader of Retraction Watch who goes under… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    Fazlul Sarkar Subpoenas PubPeer

    Last month I mentioned that a professor at Wayne State, Fazlul Sarkar, was thinking of suing the PubPeer site or its commenters, after a host of negative comments on his papers disrupted his move to the University of Mississippi. Well, he’s making good on that threat, according to Retraction Watch. The court papers have all… Read More
  • Biological News

    The Electromagnetic Field Stem Cell Authors Respond

    The authors of the ACS Nano paper on using electromagnetic fields to produce stem cells have responded on PubPeer. They have a good deal to say on the issues around the images in their paper (see the link), and I don’t think that argument is over yet. But here’s what they have on criticisms of… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    No More Prearranged Editors at PNAS

    While we’re on the topic of the literature, I see that PNAS has made some changes to their system: Although the largest number of submissions to PNAS are through the Direct Submission route, there continues to linger a general perception that to publish a paper in PNAS, an author requires sponsorship of an NAS member. Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    No, They Really Aren’t Reproducible

    Here’s an interview with Nobel winner Randy Schekman, outspoken (as usual) on the subject of the scientific literature. This part caught my attention: We have a problem. Some people claim that important papers cannot be replicated. I think this is an argument that has been made by the drug companies. They claim that they take… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    See You in Court? Not Likely

    There had been talk of some sort of trouble brewing via PubPeer, the open-source post-publication review site, and this appears to be it. There’s more on the issue at Science: Farzul Sarkar at Wayne State is suing, if he can find the right people to sue. The issue first came to light in August, when… Read More