The question relates to what Langmuir termed “Pathological Science”, simply put “people are tricked into false results … by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions“. There is a lot of pathological science and I only use the examples below, because I am most familiar with them; for nanoparticles, I have a personal interest in understanding these materials, since I use them to try to make biological measurements, e.g., here.
(more…)
Archive for November, 2014
Are we there yet?
Posted in Nanotechnology, Peer review, Post publication peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, tagged Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, Nanotechnology, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress on November 18, 2014| 1 Comment »
My opinion: pure bovine excrement
Posted in Peer review, Post publication peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, tagged research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress on November 11, 2014| 3 Comments »
I need a “Bullshit-O-Meter”, which would determine the purity of bovine excrement that at times heads my way. In a previous post, “Why doesn’t the sun go around the earth?”, I put forth my views on the case brought by Fazlul Sarkar that aims to lift the anonymity of PubPeer. This led to an e-mail from Weishi Meng, which starts (note I have redacted the co-addressee).
“Dear Drs. XXX and Fernig, (more…)
Elsevier bad for your h-index?
Posted in Science process, Science publishing, tagged Learned Society, Open Access, research, science, Science progress on November 5, 2014|
Bearing in mind that there are lies, damned lies and publication metrics (apologies to Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain), publishing in Elsevier journals may not be good for the health of your future citations. (more…)
Ferniglab Blog 