Search

The article focuses on the impact a Russian amended law concerning state secrets is having on science publishing by Russian scientists. It states President Vladimir Putin used a decree in May 2015 expanding the scope of a law requiring scientists get permission from the Federal Security Service prior to publishing results which could have industrial or military applications. It reports Russian universities are requiring scientists seek approval to the publication of any findings without exception.

The author reflects on bibliometrics, a way of quantitatively analyzing scientific literature to assess its quality, and criticizes the way scientists are guided mainly by citation statistics. Topics include the negative effects of bibliometrics in terms of hindering the creative development of a research agenda and the need for scientists to focus on scientific merit versus journal impact factor by resisting dependence on bibliometrics in their decision-making process.

The article reports on a study suggesting that older scientists had published more research papers than their younger counterparts. It was found that those in their 50s and 60s had published twice as many papers per year as compared to those who are in their early 30s. Yves Gingras, a historian of science, became interested in the topic when he read that the average age for first grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Maryland had increased from 34 in 1970 to almost 42 in 2004.

The article features about the governments, that are giving financial rewards to scientists for publishing high-profile papers. In South Korea researchers get US$3,000 and in China the amount is ten times more, and in Pakistan it is in the form of research grant. But some critics fear this trend is dangerous, and ethics are compromised, by equating excellence with money. Some, view that the reward systems has some merit, partly because in involves anonymous peer reviewers.

Reports that a jury in Arizona is to decide whether the authors of a peer-reviewed paper challenging another scientist's results are guilty of defamation. Ronald Dorn's litigation against Wallace Broecker, Warren Beck, Douglas Donahue, Tim Jull, George Burr, and Ekkehart Malotki for their article in 'Science' which challenged his rock-dating methods; His settlement with Broecker; The defendants' claim that their manuscript received extensive peer review before submission; Arguments of the attorneys.

The article focuses on the collaboration between scientists Antonio Iavarone and Anna Lasorella in exploring the role of a family of proteins in brain cancer. Their study has led them from gene expression to basic cell-division processes, and onto neurobiology. They discovered that a family of proteins essential to the basic processes of cell proliferation and cancer also exerts influence beyond cell division in nervous-system development.

The article reports that the researchers' careful observation of satellite data have earned them a trip to one of the hottest places on the planet. Tim Wright, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds and his colleagues detailed the phenomenon. According to Wright, the data gathered by him and his colleagues in their 3-week expedition to the desert of Afar suggest that, in general, magma controls the rifting in the late states of continental splitting.

The article provides an overview of a study conducted by scientist Giulio Superti-Furga and his colleagues on protein complexes. The group studied yeast proteins at Cellzome, the biotechnology firm co-founded by Superti-Furga in Heidelberg, Germany. They discovered that proteins form hundreds of core complexes. They also found out that these proteins can combine with other proteins to gain additional capabilities.

The article focuses on the career of Cheng-Ming Chuong, a developmental biologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Chuong has interest on how feathers are generated in adult birds. He decided to try to track down the location of stem cells in feathers. Chuong and his team discovered that in flight feathers, the ring of stem cells tilts towards the side where the quill arises. He plans to continue his characterization of feather stem cells.

The article reports on the success of Jean-Pierre Lebreton and an international team of more than 100 scientists on their space exploration in Titan, Saturn's largest moon. The scientist landed a probe on Titan to learn more about the composition and properties of its atmosphere and surface, hoping to provide clues about Earth's primeval conditions.

Focuses on the work of Alison Smith, a plant scientist at the University of Cambridge in Great Britain, in exploring the idea that seaweed make Vitamin B12. Collaboration made with her constant collaborator Martin Warren to initiate the experiment; Inquiry made on the genomic sequences of the three types of algae; Examination on the mechanism by which the algae get the vitamin from the bacteria and also what the bacteria get from the transaction.

Reports on the findings of a review of scientific papers from fourteen journals that found one third of the lead authors had a direct financial interest in the published research. The report in the journal `Science and Engineering Ethics'; A list of the journals that were reviewed; Details of the study.

The authors discuss science publishing. They states that 2011 became the year of retraction which has risen 15-fold while the number of papers increased by less than 50%. They mention that the requirement of new findings discussed a retraction or correction to be peer reviewed can keep the scientific record as up-to-date as possible. They note that the long-term credibility of the scientific record will boost if scientists and journals consider post-publication peer review.

The article discusses the objections of scientists towards the experimental design and conclusions of the insecticidal toxins from the Bacillus thringiensis study conducted by Emma Rosi-Marshall and colleagues in 12 streams in Indiana. It mentions that after the study has released, complaints about the paper had rippled through the research community. It states that behind the attacks on Rosi-Marshall's paper are scientists who are determined to prevent papers they view to have scientific flaws from influencing policy makers.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article about the metrics used in the assessment of the impact of scientists on the publishing behaviour of journals by Jevin West in the previous issue.

The article offers information on the ResearchGate, free social networking site for academics, which helps scientists and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators. It mentions the views of owner Ijad Madisch, physician and virologist, on the success of the ResearchGate and the academic social networks. Topics discussed include views of researchers on the service, charts and graphs on the comparison with other social networks, academic social network.

The article offers the insights of Seth Stein, a geophysicist at the Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, regarding the hazard of the Reelfoot fault in the middle of Tennessee bean field and Mississippi River. According to Stein, the evidence shows that the U.S. government and several scientists have made misconception about the earthquake hazard in the area. Meanwhile, Stein and his group have published papers that present proof that supports his observation.

Focuses on scientific fraud and misconduct. Debate about how many cases of fraud occur in scientific research; Agreement that scientific fraud must be dealt with and eliminated; Explanation of the process of fraud investigation in the United States and in Europe; National committees versus local committees in investigating misconduct; Germany as a leader in instituting procedures for handling and preventing scientific misconduct. INSETS: Japanese scandals raise public distrust;Editors debate whether to blow the whistle on suspect papers;US stalls on new definitions of misconduct.

The article offers information on the coding errors of the computer programming used by scientists and researchers. It states that the computer coding errors are considered to bring some scientists different problems such as the waste of time and energy and the retraction of science papers. Greg Wilson of the Software Carpentry cites that having a formal training on computer programming can help scientists and researchers to properly address the coding errors in computer programming.

The article reports on the efforts of U.S. government to make scientific research available for all. It reports that the accessibility offered by the Internet has transformed science publishing over the past decade. The government of the U.S. is making efforts to make all federally funded research available for free. The new system will make huge numbers of scientific articles publicly available for all. It reports that such archives will basically contain the final versions of the manuscripts written by the authors. There was an increase in public access in late 2007 when the U.S. Congress passed a bill and made it compulsory for scientists funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) to deposit their papers within 12 months of publication.

The article reports on the plans of the journal "Science" in targeting certain high-risk papers for extra scrutiny. The move comes in response to a report from an external committee convened by the journal to assess its handling of the papers behind the Woo Suk Hwang fraud scandal. It is recommended that the journal should institute a policy in an effort to clamp down on fraud.

Discusses the lack of high-quality research papers published by scientists from China. Factors attributed to the trend; Comparison in the number of high-impact papers published by scientists from China and the United States; Solutions to the low number of productive biologists.

The article presents information on an investigation made on prominent Italian cancer researcher Alfredo Fusco regarding inappropriately duplicated images in his paper. It informs that the paper of Fusco was criticized by Enrico Bucci, who runs BioDigitalValley, a small biomedical start-up company and offer publication of meta-analysis services to the customers.

The article discusses a text analysis of biomedical papers which revealed that young researchers are much more likely than older scientists to study innovative topics. It found that senior researchers are more likely to publish when they are supervising a younger scientist. The study was conducted by Mikko Packalen of the University of Waterloo in Canada and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University in California and published by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research in February 2015.

The article focuses on mistakes made to several research papers about induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. According to the author, the incident of Shinya Yamanaka' errors shows why there is a reason for concern as scientists jump on the trend of iPS cell research. Research papers rushed for publication, editors who are pushed by authors to speed up peer review and good competition are among the reasons why mistakes and carelessness exist in iPS research. Publicity also leads researchers away from their mission and causes the presence of fraud.

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 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.

When cyclist Lance Armstrong won his fourth Tour de France last year, he not only followed tradition by dividing the prize money among his team-mates, he also doubled the amount to his fellow cyclists out of his own pocket. This largesse recognized that without his team's support, Armstrong would not have won the race. It also demonstrates best practice in team science — rewarding the supporting cast that makes a lead author's findings possible, rather than hoarding all of the credit for oneself. Last month the U.S. National Institutes of Health held a symposium on how to promote selflessness in the name of team science, primarily for the benefit of biologists in the United States. But its findings could improve fortunes of scientists in other disciplines or other countries who are considering joining large projects. The Human Genome Project and most experiments in high-energy physics are prime examples, and such endeavours often feature a cast of hundreds. But institutions that grant scientists tenure, extend contracts and give pay rises haven't always recognized the varied contributions made to these projects. So recognition may have to come from the scientists themselves. Although scientists may not have pockets as deep as Armstrong's, they can match his spirit in other ways. First, they can give younger scientists who make key contributions first authorship of main papers, and rotate first authorship of supporting papers among group members. They can also include details of the roles that each group member played in the work. Finally, they can remind tenure granting institutions over and over again that a winning author is surrounded by a supporting cast, and that all should be rewarded.

The authors discuss the formula that estimate the h-index of life scientists. They state the construction of history of publication, citation, and funding of neuroscientists, researchers, and evolutionary scientists. They mention the use of linear regression with elastic net regularization. They say that the formula shows that future of scientists is not random and rejection of paper could increase predictability of h-index.

The article reports on the science funding in Great Britain. This paper gives observation on the changing landscapes in the funding that the government provides. Research councils may be pressured to deliver results as the government now seeks for results to the long and heavily invested science researches. Scientists had enjoyed tremendous funding in the past decade and the government wants to see results as indicated by the council documents implying economic competitiveness and social impacts.

The author looks at the role of the European Commission for the development of European science. The engagement of scientists in the consultation process that will follow from the publication of the 'green paper' is emphasized. The European Research Area's appeal as a nebulous concept is also discussed.

The article features about the governments are giving cash prizes to scientists for publishing high-profile papers. Many scientists are not happy as they think that the driving force for research should be curiosity, not money. This system of rewards is now practised in South Korea, China and in Pakistan and many developing countries. But some critics fear this trend is not good,m as it involves plagiarism and ethics are compromised, and some feel insulted for equating excellence with money.

The article suggests ways to avoid disputes over authorship in science. Authors or scientists should spell out their contribution in the paper. In addition, they should be trained in the ethics of authorship. Many scientists also believe that the simplest way to avoid conflict is to discuss authorship when a collaboration begins.

The article focuses on how scientific methods are evolving from paper notebooks to online databases. The scientists keep records of both experimental procedures and observations in their laboratory notebooks. They replaced and enhanced their notebooks with desktop computers. Further, they had analyzed complex systems that require data to be combined from several groups and even several disciplines.

The article reports that Gerald Schatten which was recently exposed for faking the results of cloning experiments was cleared of misconduct by University of Pittsburgh in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. An investigation was conducted by the university after claims in a paper that he had co-authored the cloning research which turned out to be false.

The article presents excerpts of research papers published in previous issues of the journal "Nature." An article published in the March 23, 1905 issue of the journal discussed the contents of the book "Die Kalahari." Another article published in the March 26, 1955 issue of the journal presented the views of scientist J.R. Oppenheimer on issues related to communication.

Reflects upon the problems associated with authorship of scientific papers. Infrequency that a scientist is the sole author of a work; Proposal that any co-author be responsible for a paper's entire content; General views of different scientific disciplines on the issue; Benefits and drawbacks of alphabetical ordering; Impact of dispute upon people's trust of science.

Examines career prospects for scientists in the Benelux countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. State of scientific research and state-based funding in each country; Number of papers published in the Netherlands between 1992 and 1996; Competition for academic jobs in each place; Belgium's problems with history and culture. INSETS: Search the web for jobs;Belgian biotech boom brings skill shortage.

The article presents information on the mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) regarding which there there is a lot of confusion. It informs that the scientists along with industry experts and governmental organizations are trying to introduce scientific clarity to the burgeoning field of MSCs. It further presents statistics related to the increase in the number of papers related to mesenchymal stem cells.

In this article, the author discusses his involvement in the blogsphere as a stem-cell faculty scientist along with an encouragement for his colleagues to be engaged in blogging. He relates his experiences of battling prostate cancer to the sudden closure of the stem-cell blog The Niche in the "Nature" magazine, which was his favorite. However, he says that other scientist were afraid to do blogging because they are worry on the negative paper reviews, grant, and insulting reader's comments.

In this article the author discusses the proposed idea to frequently cite an online patent databases. The author notes that this idea exposes the liability of the publisher's employer for triple damages. Furthermore, the author mentions that corporate scientists would be advised to avoid reading papers that cite patents because they cannot be compared to peer-reviewed academic articles.

The article focuses on the web technology blog of the journal "Nature." It states that the blog is used by scientists who follow the advent of online tools and to author papers for online peer review. It also mentions that the blog shows how a Wave discussion works, and reorders citations added in the database.

The article focuses on a scientific misconduct investigation at the University of Göttingen in Germany. It states that a preliminary investigation of sixteen members of a Collaborative Research Centre found the scientists had listed non-existent papers in a routine milestone report required for continuation of funding. It mentions the interdisciplinary project was studying the stability of rainforests in Indonesia.

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 reports on India's planned establishment of a national body which would investigate cases of plagiarism and misconduct in science. The planned formation of an investigative unit was induced by prevalent fraud incidents involving popular scientists like Pattium Chiranjeevi. It states that the chemistry professor was found guilty of plagiarizing or falsifying research papers. Meanwhile, national science advisory committee head C. N. R. Rao claims that he will discuss the proposal at his next meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the previously published articles "On the paper trail" and "Researchers criticized for poor time-keeping."

The article reports on the discovery of the clumped isotope thermometry, a valuable tool for paleoenvironmental studies by a group of researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California. The new tool was discovered by measuring the abundance of molecules which contain oxygen-isotope and the uncommon carbon-isotope. According to published papers, the results of early test of this clumped thermometer on corals and fish earbones were promising which provides a new record of ocean temperature during Paleozoic era.

The article focuses on the academic analysis which shows the weak foundation of electronic voting systems in California. The analysis was made possible by the scientists of Berkeley and Davis campuses of the University of California in Berkeley. The analysis indicates that the three systems purchased by the state from Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., Hart InterCivic Inc. and Diebold Inc. failed to meet the needed security requirements for the voters. Secretary of state Debra Bowen said that the result would allow voters to use paper ballots for the February 2008 elections and promised the public to reattest the machines once they comply with the basic requirements for the voting system. Meanwhile, reactions of other public officials on the analysis result are offered.

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.

Discusses the importance of publishing research papers. Challenges faced by the researcher in publishing the research; Need to convince peer reviewers of the contribution of the research to the collective knowledge; Achievement of a researcher if his or her work get published.