Skip to Content

Posts tagged with "The Scientific Literature"

  • The Dark Side

    Dupeless Needication

    Here are two papers have been going around on Twitter for a few days now. The first one is from a Hindawi title, “The Scientific World Journal”, from a group at the University of Malaya. And the second is from the same team (several overlapping co-authors), published a year or so later in Scientific Reports. Neither… Read More
  • The Dark Side

    Pfizer Fires For Fakery

    Today’s second “bad behavior” story comes courtesy of Retraction Watch and Leonard Schneider’s For Better Science. Schneider has been tracking some problems with papers from Min-Jean Yin, who was working at Pfizer’s La Jolla site. Five papers that came out of her work there are now being retracted – duplicate im… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    Woodward’s Prose Style

    Organic chemists (and anyone who’s written or read a standard scientific paper) may be interested in this article about R. B. Woodward’s writing style (Wavefunction has a lot on it here). I respect Woodward’s achievements and abilities immensely – any chemist who doesn’t is probably a dolt. All scientific fields have f… Read More
  • Clinical Trials

    How Much Clinical Research Is Useful?

    John Ioannidis is back with an article titled “Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful”. (Thanks to Cambridge MedChem Consulting for the mention of it). His emphasis here on clinical work comes from his own admission that improving the efficiency of early-stage research is much harder to do, since it can lead in so many directions… Read More
  • The Dark Side

    The University of Malaya Is Not Having It

    Much faster than I (or probably anyone) expected, the University of Malaya has investigated the papers written about here and here, and concluded that yes indeed, they are full of fraudulent images. Retraction Watch has the story here, and here’s the statement from the university. They’re asking the authors to immediately retract all th… Read More
  • Clinical Trials

    The NEJM and Clinical Trials: What’s Going On?

    Here’s an article from the New England Journal of Medicine on randomized clinical trials. You would expect one of the most well-known medical journals in the world to be in favor of clinical trials, but that doesn’t quite seem to be the case. The article is very much a on-the-one-hand on-the-other-hand affair: By the turn… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    More on Scientific Reports, And on Faked Papers

    After seeing that horrible junk paper in Scientific Reports, and after some correspondence with people who’ve submitted to the journal and reviewed papers for it, there’s a question that I think needs to be asked. Has anyone ever had a paper rejected from this journal? They’re supposed to review for accuracy, not impact, but if… Read More
  • The Dark Side

    Crap, Courtesy of a Major Scientific Publisher

    I hate to be like this. But yesterday a number of chemists began noticing this paper, and after having a look, I think it really needs to be mentioned. (Update: if that link is down, and it’s been spotty under all the attention, try this one). It’s a group from Kuala Lumpur, the pharmacology department… Read More
  • The Scientific Literature

    Reproducibility: Crisis or Not?

    Here are the results of a Nature survey on reproducibility in the scientific literature. They themselves admit that it’s a “confusing snapshot”, but it shows that we’re still arguing about what “reproducibility” means. 52% of the responders (over 1500 scientists) said that there was “a significant crisis… Read More
  • Academia (vs. Industry)

    Stand By Your Data With Some Cash

    Reproducibility in the scientific literature has been a big issue for some time now, and it’s not going away any time soon. There are arguments and counterarguments about how much of the literature is not reproducible, how reproducible the attempts to reproduce it are, what the standards should be for such efforts, and how much… Read More