The assiduous reader will recall that on March 22 I formally contacted MIT regarding the re-use of images in multiple papers by Francesco Stellacci. This includes one instance of an image being re-used to describe a different experiment, which so far has resulted in a correction. MIT have got back to me stating that they […]
Search Results for 'stripy'
Stripy nanoparticles: update from MIT ombudsman
Posted in Research integrity, Science process, tagged imaging, Nanoparticle, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress on May 7, 2013| 1 Comment »
Stripy nanoparticles: an outside opinion
Posted in Nanotechnology, Research integrity, Science process, tagged Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, Nanotechnology on December 3, 2012| 1 Comment »
Professor Philip Moriarty from the University of Nottingham, who is a specialist in scanning probe microscopy, especially STM, has weighed in with an opinion. It should be stressed that this is entirely external and so is most welcome. As he points out, other analyses, e.g., 2-D NMR, may or may not hold up the hypothesis. […]
Stripy nanoparticles revisited
Posted in Nanotechnology, tagged imaging, Nanotechnology on November 26, 2012| 4 Comments »
Raphael’s paper in Small on the likeliness (or lack of) of ligands self-assembling into stripes on nanoparticles is finally published. As Raphael notes, this took three years (plus six months at journals that would not touch the paper). Hats off to Small for letting science work as it should, that is through debate. However, the […]
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 »
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 […]
A resolution growing firmer by the day: don’t be a commodity
Posted in Nanotechnology, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress, tagged Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, Science progress on September 14, 2014| 5 Comments »
On December 31 2013 I posted my New Year’s resolution: to only review manuscripts from open access or learned society journals. My reasoning was that open access will only be the norm if we stop giving that which is most precious, our time, to closed access journals. I really think the wider community needs to […]
A birthday question
Posted in Nanotechnology, Post publication peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress, tagged Gish Gallop, Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, research, Research integrity, science on February 6, 2014| 1 Comment »
A rather one sided debate on stripy nanoparticles is taking place over on PubPeer and on Raphaël’s blog An individual (“unregistered”) is engaging a good old Gish Gallop, having a hard squint in the dark and seeing patterns. It happens. I have suggested that “unregistered” should turn their efforts to something more mundane, which is […]
Reproducing science: there are no stripes, but FGF-1 IS the universal ligand
Posted in Fibroblast growth factor, Glycobiology, Imaging, Nanotechnology, Peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress, tagged FGF, Fibroblast growth factor, glycosaminoglycans, heparan sulfate, Nanoparticle, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress on January 13, 2014| Leave a Comment »
Gradually, the structural problems in sciences are making their way to the surface. There have been articles in newspapers, The Economist and other magazines around the world on the subject. These are stimulated by the constant dripping of information and studies that sit awkwardly with the perceived notion of how science functions. The high profile […]
Christmas Reads and Reproducing Science
Posted in Fibroblast growth factor, History, Nanotechnology, Peer review, Post publication peer review, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress, tagged FGF, Fibroblast growth factor, Nanoparticle, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress on December 26, 2013| Leave a Comment »
Lots of tweets on the subject of great reads in the run up to Christmas, and, reflecting my preponderance for following science, most have been science flavoured. At the start of October this year I came across an article in the Guardian on a new translation of Herodotus’ Histories. This is my Christmas read and […]
Peer review, stings and editors
Posted in Development, Nanotechnology, Peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress, tagged research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress on October 8, 2013| 1 Comment »
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.
Latest score: EPFL 1- MIT 0
Posted in Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress, tagged Nanoparticle, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress on May 18, 2013| 4 Comments »
The saga of whether there is any substance in the claims by Stellacci of stripes on nanoparticles and that such stripes impart remarkable properties to these materials has taken a new turn. Readers may remember that important issues have been requests to journals and his previous and current employers, MIT and EPFL, to act on […]
