Many have been deeply offended by the reaction of one “Ofek”, whose request for free posting on Biology Online in return for ‘exposure’ was met by the prospective author , DN Lee, with a very polite “Thanks, but no thanks”. Ofek’s response was to call the prospective author a “whore”.
Unbelievable. But true.
It gets worse. Continue Reading »
Posted in Science process, Science publishing | Tagged DN Lee, Scientific American | 2 Comments »
The so-called “sting” by Science on Open Access journals has brought a lot of criticism, some of this is here, and here. For me the best has been Micheal Eisen’s post, which uses satire to show that Science was well wide of the mark. Continue Reading »
Posted in Development, Nanotechnology, Peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress | 1 Comment »
Today, with two days left of the 4th FEBS Advanced Lecture Course on Matrix Pathobiology, Signaling and Molecular Targets, we had a speaker go over time in a big way. This was despite excellent and firm chairing by Renato Iozzo – he had even brought a referee’s whistle, as we didn’t have a bell. I sympathise with Renato, this happened to me a year ago, when I chaired a session at the proteoglycan Gordon conference. Continue Reading »
Posted in Conference, Seminars | Tagged research, science, Science progress, speaking | Leave a Comment »
I have come across an excellent video on the peer review process at Biomed Central, which I thoroughly reocommend.
There are particularly good points from Greg Petsko, as well as Joshua Sanes and Laurie Goodman.
One of Greg Petsko’s excellent points, which echoes the frustrations vented in a number of my posts (some examples here and here), is that editors really need to act like editors, not just some sort of conduit. That is, they need to make decisions based on evidence, not on some sort of commercial game in acquiring a false auro of prestige for their journal.
Joshua Sanes identifies the gross non-linearity between the perception of journal prestige and the actual difference in the quality and importance of the papers published in these and other journals.
One important point they have missed, which I believe is key, is the post publication peer review, now in its nascent form at PubPeer.com. Editors need to act on community concerns, not simply stick their heads in the sand or issue yet another euphemistic mega correction, something I discuss in a number of posts, the most recent of which is here.
Posted in Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged Peer Review, research, Research integrity, science, Science progress | Leave a Comment »
There is an argument, which I subscribe to, that the self-righting mechanisms of science are not working. To kick off, it is worth noting that the claim that science is self-righting is made by scientists and by organisations such as journal publishers, whose very existence depends on science. To me there is something of a conflict of interest here.
In my last post on the subject, “Does Science self-right“, I went through a selection of the evidence that highlighted the conflict of interest journals have in claiming that science self-rights and enumerated a number of examples of what we might euphemistically call “problem papers”. Since, I have come across a transcript of Peter Medawar’s excellent broadcast entitled “Is The Scientific Paper a Fraud?“. Continue Reading »
Posted in Nanotechnology, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged Nanoparticle, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, Science fraud, Science progress | 4 Comments »
The Fibroblast Growth Factor Gordon Research conference is biennial, so it almost follows a Martian calendar and next year it will be five years old. The fifth Gordon Research conference on Fibroblast Growth Factors will be held in Ventura, California, March 1-7 2014. This is THE meeting for all things FGF and assembles an eclectic mix of leaders in the field, young PIs, industry scientists and scientists in training. A Gordon Research Seminar will precede the full meeting. This was introduced at the last GRC (May 2012) and was very successful. Continue Reading »
Posted in Development, Fibroblast growth factor, Glycobiology, Muscle, Nanotechnology, Nervous system, Zebrafish | Tagged extracellular matrix, FGF, Fibroblast growth factor, glycosaminoglycans, heparan sulfate, neuroscience, research, Research integrity, Science progress | Leave a Comment »
An interesting discussion has arisen on science and the humanities, sparked by Steven Pinker’s essay in New Republic. Personally, I side with Massimo Pigliucci.
Indeed, my initial reaction to Steven Pinker’s essay was that science has a long way to go before it can explain (if it is even possible – the problem may require more computation than available in the universe) as much about the human condition as Jacques soliloquy in As You Like It.
A far more pertinent exercise is the podcast of See Arr Oh of the Just Like Cooking blog, ChemJobber of the eponynous blog
and Stuart Cantrill on plagiarism and how one journal (Stuart Cantrill is editor of Nature Chemistry) deals with the editorial process.
Plagiarism here is taken as the unattributed reproduction of text, passing it off as one’s own. Continue Reading »
Posted in Nanotechnology, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged Nanoparticle, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress | 6 Comments »