Search

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 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 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.

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 presents the various perspectives of readers concerning the content and topics that the journal "Nature India" should provide. Bikash Mohanty suggests that the journal must highlight original Indian research and not just publish research which are done in scientifically advanced countries. Arun Kumar Chokkappa mentions that the journal must list funding opportunities that the region has, which would serve as an eye opener for budding scientists who do not have enough fund for their research. He added that "Nature India" can help boost careers by putting students in touch with scientists.

The article focuses on duplicate publication, as discussed various forums and blogs. At the "Nature Publishing Group (NPG)" blogs and forums, one commentary that proposes the subject of widespread duplicate publication has attracted numerous responses. Meanwhile, a debate among scientists have arisen at the publishing in the forum of the New Millennium on Nature Network. It discusses on whether duplicate publication will become a problem in their profession and what are the means that it can be stemmed.