On Sunday, tune in to WUSA at 8:30 a.m. Eastern in Washington, DC, or online starting at 9 to see Ivan on BioCenturyTV. (He might just have an exciting announcement to make.) Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- Another publisher sting: A paper by Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel was accepted by two scientific journals.
- Here’s why correcting the scientific record is hard.
- Want your article processing charges waived? No problem, just cite our journals’ studies in your other papers, says publisher.
- So, were those slides faked? The Office of Research Integrity has an exercise for you.
- “Scientific Peer Review Is Broken,” says PubPeer. “We’re Fighting to Fix It With Anonymity.”
- A study bucks the trend in the rest of academia: Women law professors are cited more often than their male colleagues.
- “…[F]or authors who copy extensively: Their papers don’t get cited much.” The geography of plagiarism, explained by John Bohannon.
- Jill Neimark reports on the dirty little secret of cancer research.
- Who’s to blame for bad press coverage of health studies?
- A fake Institute for Scientific Information?
- It’s about to get a lot harder to hide the results of medical studies. Julia Belluz explains why.
- Andrew Gelman nails it on plagiarism: “There’s no problem with copying; the problem is with hiding the source.”
- Why fund basic science? asks Larry Moran.
- “[P]eople sometimes mistake skepticism for a globally negative attitude towards new or unfamiliar ideas…”
- Colin Firth, neuroscientist?