Search

The article announces the standards for all research papers on cloning by "Nature." The periodical is asking the authors to provide nuclear and mitochondrial DNA fingerprints for all cloning papers submitted for publication. Nuclear DNA fingerprints of the lines should be presented for comparison with existing lines, in the case of papers disclosing new embryonic stem cell lines.

The article discusses a research paper on mathematical models that help scientists with their decision on submitting their papers to ecology journals, which references a study published in a 2015 issue of "PLoS ONE," and cites ecology journals recommended by the researchers.

The article reports on the retraction of a "Nature" research paper which was co-written by Nobel prizewinner and scientist Linda Buck. It claims that "Nature" editors have found some inconsistencies between its researchers' original data and their publication in 2001. Olfactory-neuron researcher Hitoshi Sakano, however, notes that the retraction would not affect much their field of interest because other researchers have affirmed the paper's results using other techniques. The retracted paper describes the tracing in neural pathways from scent receptors in the nose towards the olfactory cortex of the brain.

Reports on the publication of a research paper that argues in favor of intelligent design in the "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" in the U.S. Impact of the publication of the paper on the advocacy of getting intelligent design into the curriculum; Use of information theory and other techniques to argue that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution; Overview of the arguments of Stephen Meyer, the author of the paper.

Reports the erasing of an article of a journal due to its inappropriate political comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Contents of the paper; Statements of the lead author of the article; Reaction of the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics on the publication of the article.

A study highlighting statistical gaffes in scientific literature has brought renewed calls for vigilance among mathematically challenged researchers and journal editors. Biostatisticians Emili García-Berthou and Caries Alcaraz of the University of Girona, Spain, gauged the extent of statistical errors in some volumes of two periodicals. Both person used three standard software packages to recalculate 'P values' the parameters by which researchers measure whether a result has statistical significance. The procedure found some error and casts doubt on statistics in published material in these periodicals.

The author presents several solutions to the problem regarding the replication of published scientific studies. One obvious solution is for journals to publish more papers that describe failures to replicate results. Scientific publishing's move online may be a big help, opening up new possibilities for sharing and commenting on papers and methods. Another possibility is to link to conversation happening elsewhere on the Web.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to articles in previous issues of "Nature" magazine.

Presents a letter to the editor in response to the editorial "Too Much, Too Soon," which appeared in a previous issue of the journal "Nature."

Reports on developments related to science published in "Nature" periodical. Availability of the book "The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand"; Abatement of the dust nuisance.

The article offers information on the privilege access to publication in the house journal to members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It states that more than three-quarters of the papers published in the journal are direct submissions. It further discusses members can submit papers up to four to the body's high-profile journal per year, and the venerable Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The article highlights the "Nature" journal awards for creative mentoring in science for young researchers in Australasia. It discusses the factors and identify established definition that constitute good scientific mentoring. Moreover, the quality of applications was outstanding and the panel commented that this was one of the hardest evaluative tasks they had ever undertaken. All of them were experienced in refereeing papers and grant applications.

Reports on concerns about the way in which journals select papers for publications in the U.S. Controversies over scientific fraud and other disputed findings; Disadvantages to publishers; Suggestions to overcome the problem.

The article focuses on the efforts of journal editors in dealing with scientific fraud. Due to the costliness of examining every submitted paper for fabrication, editors analyzes some papers in which the raw data are suspect. Journals are in the process of assessing automated computer searches on submitted data. Nowadays, editors tend to challenge research papers that they think are suspicious.

The article focuses on the usefulness of computer tools in detecting fraudulent images in research papers. This could help journal editors identify suspicious images before they are published. Some medical journals have already used the tool in checking submitted manuscripts. The only concern of using the tool is the slow process involved in checking research papers.

The author reflects upon myths surrounding the journal's selection of research papers published in it. The author negates the myth that the journal selects the papers that show a high citation rate and clarifies another myth that the journal does not reject a paper on the basis of one negative referee. The author explains that the papers selected for review are analyzed by more than two referees and informs that the journal used nearly 45,000 referees in 2009.

The article reports on the inquiry of a research team led by Tae Kook Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in Taejon on two articles published in "Science and Nature Chemical Biology" on imaging living cells. Tae Kook Kim reported a new method for imaging living cells that used magnetized nanoparticles. KAIST's investigation is still going but has released some preliminary findings that the scientific truth of the papers was in question. The journal's editor said that the KAIST investigation team told him that the authors wanted to pull back the paper as soon as possible.

The article reports on the argument concerning the growth of Supplementary Information (SI) found in papers. It was inferred that there has been a rapid rise of SI found in different papers published by authors and the magazine comprises an average of five SI found in their publications. It states that the increase is not caused by the volume of raw information supplied but on how the SI is being crafted. It was found that one of the papers which show the effective use of SI was written by P. W. K. Rothemud that was published in the magazine. A reader argues that SI play an important role in integrating files with those papers that are difficult to print, however, the large number of information provided may result to the exclusion of some data or not be shown in the paper.

The article reports on the publication of the 50th paper in the "Nature" journal of Shri Kulkarni, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He acknowledges the help extended by his postdoctoral and graduate students for his productivity. About half of Kulkarni's reports deal with gamma-ray burst phenomena. An observational basis for the linkage of white dwarfs and classical novae is the focus of his most recent paper.

The article reports on the statistical flaw in scientific papers from two scientific journals, "BMJ" and "Nature." The revelation that more than a one-third of all papers published in "Nature" in 2001 contained statistical errors prompted the journal to introduce new checks on quality. At the "BMJ," four papers was found to contain flaws.

The article offers information to biologists who wish to submit their papers to the journal "Nature." The journal aspires to publish papers that are not only interesting and thought-provoking, but reproducible and useful. To be published, materials and reagents need to be carefully described and readily available to interested scientists.

The article presents statistics concerning Spanish authors and researchers contributing to "Nature." 32 percent of researchers working in Spain have contributed to papers in the periodical in 2006. 86 percent of papers in the periodical with contributing authors from Spain are related to biological sciences.

The article presents statistical data relevant to the periodical "Nature." Four manuscripts submitted to the periodical in 2006 have come from Ireland. There are 16 papers published in the periodical in 2006 that have focused on protein work. In addition, there are 53 authors who collaborated on the yeast paper published in the March 2006 issue of the periodical.

The article assesses the cases wherein the referees differ in their view of papers submitted within the journal. A specialist takes in a positive manner when he find no flows on the application of the paper. In another case, a referee may recommends the publication of a paper but points out its limitations in the value of the finding. In another way, a referee may express reservations about the appropriateness of some of the techniques used by the author in writing a certain paper.

It would be interesting to know the accessibility score for researcher G. D. Gopen and J. A. Swan's paper 'The science of scientific writing,' cited in the July 10, 2003 issue of the journal 'Nature.' Although it makes some useful points, students think it is overlong and full of unnecessarily complicated words and long-winded sentences. As an alternative, the author recommends the workbook 'Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers' by Mimi Zieger.

Comments on the issue of politics that goes into publication of research papers in popular journals. Motive behind the urge of scientists to publish in well-known journals; Criteria that ought to followed for selection of papers for publication; Need for change in the funding of scientific research.

Reports the plan of the `Langmuir' chemistry journal to deal with a dispute over a submitted paper by publishing it along with an addendum that disputes some of its conclusions. Discussion on the contents of the addendum; Information on the research paper on nanotechnology submitted by Peter Schwartz.

The article reports on Pfizer Inc.'s efforts to acquire 11 papers from "The New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM) that reviewed their controversial painkillers Celebrex (celecoxib) and Bextra (valdecoxib). It claims that Pfizer would use the peer reviews in litigations that charged their two drugs as causatives of heart attacks and strokes. NEJM editor-in-chief Jeffrey Drazen, however, argues that the success of Pfizer's intention would yield adverse effects in the peer review process. Other scientists likewise state that it would undermine the system of peer review which depends much on confidentiality.

The article focuses on the lack of due credit and recognition for Chinese authors who have published scientific articles and papers. This is in part caused by the problem of name recognition compounded by the challenges of transliterating Chinese characters for English-language publications and by overuse of a few common surnames by the growing population. Publishers make things worse by having varying rules for Asian names. Also, some journals insist on listing given names first and surname second while others allow authors to present their names according to the tradition in their own countries.

The article reports on the launch of a new science journal called "Answers Research Journal" (ARJ) by Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry run by evangelical Ken Ham in Kentucky. This peer-reviews scientific research journal is a free, online publication devoted to research on new creation and the global flood within a biblical framework. Editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling said that the papers will be peer-reviewed by people who support the positions taken by the journal. Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, claimed that for the most part, creationism is ignored by the scientific community.

The article discusses that the flagship journal "K-theory" has been split up into a strange dispute after mathematician Anthony Bak withheld all the received papers for its publication in Germany. It states that Bak left the journal because of production problems and high subscription rate. Then, he arranged to introduce a rival title with other publisher that offer lower subscription rate. The journal publisher fired Bak because of this illegal act. Meanwhile, information on the reactions of the editors on this initiative is offered.

The article presents news briefs related to science. Hui Liu, assistant dean of the medical school at Tsinghua University in Beijing was dismissed from his job after the university learned that the research paper he submitted to get the job is not his work. The free magazine called "Science Walker" was launched to combat a declining interest in science among young people. The worth of insects is 57 billion dollars a year in the U.S. The nutrients in the three-quarters of the farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is severely degraded. French telecommunications company Alcatel is planning to acquire Lucent Technologies, parent company of Bell Labs.

Evaluates the scientific periodical 'Organisms, Diversity and Evolution.' Journal format; Sections; Presentation of papers; Periodical layout.

Evaluates the periodical 'Photochemistry & Photobiological Sciences.' Journal format; Sections; Presentation of papers; Periodical layout.

Evaluates the scientific periodical 'Fluctuation and Noise Letters.' Journal format; Sections; Presentation of papers; Periodical layout.

The article focuses on the open-access venture called "PeerJ," a journal which was launched on June 12, 2012. According to founders Peter Binfield and Jason Hoyt, the journal is aiming to drive down the costs of research publishing. It adds that the authors are asked in the journal for only a one-off fee to secure a lifetime membership that will allow them to publish free and peer-reviewed research papers.

The article presents the author's insights on peer reviewing of scientific papers in high-profile journals. The author states that the recommendation of referees to execute additional experiments after peer review increase costs and time for research laboratories. Moreover, the author suggests that the unimpeachable arguments for appropriate novelty of manuscripts and utilization of academic editors should be practiced by referees toward economical experiments and progressive journals.

The article discusses the long-rumbling hostilities between stem cell researchers in Germany after "Nature" released a reanalysis of data from the 2008 article. The researchers behind the original work reported with the use of cells from adult human testes to make pluripotent stem cells having the same properties to embryonic stem cells. The paper made headlines because such pluripotent stem cells may be used rather than ethically sensitive human embryonic tissue.

The article discusses the analization made by the editors of the "Nature Neuroscience" journal regarding the number of downloads a paper receives immediately after its appearance online. It mentions that the editors find a high correlation with downloads citation frequency years after publication. Associate editor Noah Gray gives the details at the blog of the journal, Action Potential. He notes that the number of downloads are used to rate the prominence of a particular journal. Moreover, the editors wanted to quantify readership of an article that would reflect its levels of outside interest.

The article presents the story of Ennio Tasciotti, the author of a research in the journal "Nature Nanotechnology," from planning experiments to writing the manuscript. Tasciotti revealed that the idea of writing a manuscript for the publication in the journal seemed very scary to him. Meanwhile, his advice to prospective authors is not to use many words in writing a scientific paper and specify to much information in one sentence. In connection, the story of Tasciotti can be found at the blog of the journal at http://network.nature.com/forums/nnano/1275?page=1#reply- 4105.

The article presents issues and topics published on the web in the U.S. One article written by J. Ross and colleagues in the publication entitled "Journal of the American Medical Association" stimulated discussion of ghost-writing and guest authorship in periodical's "Nature Publishing Group" several blogs. The article documented a drug-industry practice wherein it pays unidentified authors to write a paper and adding as authors the names of academics who were not substantially involved in the research. Such practice conceals the pharmaceutical's role because it misleads doctors and other readers.

The article elaborates on the accusation inflected on Merck, an international drug giant, regarding the manipulation of journals in the U.S. The company was accused of manipulating research papers relating to rofecoxib (Vioxx), Merck's withdrawn painkiller, in some published medical journals. Investigations were carried out by Joseph Ross, a doctor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and found that the company apparently manipulated dozens of publications to promote on of its products. Merck rejects the allegations of falsifications and denies that the documents show any wrongdoing.

The article discusses various topics featured in the blogs of the "Nature" journal. The retraction of a 2001 paper by Nobel laureate Linda Buck and colleagues triggered discussions on NPG blogs. Debra Speert calls it the highest profile retraction that she can recall in neuroscience and on the "Nature Network" neuroscience forum. Readers are asked to give their opinions on the role of journals and scientists in retracting published work. The journal announces that for retraction or other type of correction to be published, all authors should sign it and if some do not, the editors seek advice from peer reviewers and if necessary, the institution.

The article describes the writings featured in "Nurture," which is the magazine for "Nature" journal authors. The latest edition of "Nurture" features articles on authors and editors of the "Nature" journals. The print edition of the magazine is sent to authors who have published a paper in the previous year. The copy is also available as a digital edition.

The article reports on the demise of the Brief Communications section of the "Nature" periodical at the end of 2006. Articles and full-scale research papers are reviewed in the section. Some of the articles dealt with rat robots, Neolithic noodles and a cloned cat. Some of the reasons for the closure of the section are discussed including the demand for greater detail in presentation.

The article lists several articles submitted for the online debate on peer review conducted by the periodical "Nature". The list includes "Systems: Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature," by Theodora Bloom, "Perspectives: The Case for Group Review," by Debomoy Lahiri and "Perspective: Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Scientific Papers," by Christopher Lee.

The article focuses on the review articles published in the "Nature" journal. Recent developments in a topical area of scientific research are included in review and progress articles. Themed collections of reviews and related material are published as insights. Papers of outstanding interest that are setting new standards are progress articles.

The article reports on the merging of manuscript editors and peer reviewers into one editorial board in several journals. The "British Medical Journal" and "The Medical Journal of Australia," have experimented with naming peer reviewers, but "Biology Direct," launched by BioMed Central Ltd. is going further by routinely posting those reviews as part of the paper. Responses to the idea have been positive.

The article provides facts about the contributors based in Singapore who are connected to the publication "Nature." Scientist Karuna Sampath heads a team investigating vertebrate development. There are 54 submissions to "Nature" in 2005 from Singapore. Twelve authors working in Singapore contributed to papers published in Nature during 2005.