Weekend reads: How much can one scientist publish? And more stem cell misconduct
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, including a ScienceOnline 2014 session Ivan facilitated on post-publication peer review. Here’s a selection of what was happening elsewhere on the web:
- A “paper every ten days over sixty-one years:” Derek Lowe muses on just how much one scientist can publish.
- A university committee has found evidence of misconduct in work by a German cardiologist who claimed “stem cells derived from bone-marrow cells can repair damage in diseased hearts.”
- “Scientific publishing is killing science.”
- The incentives in science lead “to the temptation to make one’s own contribution to the development of science greater than is actually justified,” writes business ethics professor Hansrudi Lenz.
- Should studies re-analyzing data be pre-registered? asks Neuroskeptic.
- “Machines are better referees than humans but we’ll be sued if we use them,” writes Peter Murray-Rust.
- You’ve heard of the placebo and the nocebo. Now here’s the spacibo.
- Stop the presses! An immunologist has discovered a new acronym.
- Why immigrants make U.S. science great.
- Here’s Joe Rojas-Burke’s field guide to pointless medical research.
- How journalists drive scientists crazy, in graphs.
- “Gone are the days when one could say that the hype in disseminating news of science were always caused by the press.” (in Portuguese) And: “Here’s a nice look at why you should always think about the source of the financial and business information you read.”
- What does take to get an author accidentally left off a paper put back on?
- A look at Kathryn Schulz’s Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.
- PubMed Commons reviews blogs that are adding links to the commenting system for abstracts.