Search

Researchers say the policy could intensify existing issues with research quality and misconduct. Researchers say the policy could intensify existing issues with research quality and misconduct., Author(s): Gayathri Vaidyanathan Author Affiliations: Indian payment-for-papers proposal rattles scientists Some researchers fear that the proposed scheme could make it harder for Indian scientists to publish in international journals. [see [...]

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The article discusses the scientific performance indicators. It states that a host of metrics are used to quanitify notions of scientific quality, impact or prestige that have been developed into more sophisticated measures initiated by the availability of online databases, such as Elsevier BV, Thomson Reuters and Google Scholar. It says that it will be difficult in a bibliometrical sense to normalize the citation based metrics, though such variations can be evened out through division of a researcher's citation rate by the average citation count for his or her field. It also mentions that individual researchers are beginning to explore newer tools, such as online usage data and network mapping, to identify other scientists with similar interests.

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 determines the steps to be taken for scientists to secure standards in both the ethics and conduct of research. The need to acknowledge that sound ethics and good research practice go hand in hand. Leadership of the scientific community represents a solid line to be drawn between ethical transgressions. Research ethics emphasizes the health of the scientific enterprise.

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.

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 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 author discusses the role of scientists who share expertise and advice to the improved productivity of their colleagues. He states that those scientists offer crucial advice which shaped an experiment, provide thoughtful criticisms of manuscripts, and shared expertise and data with anyone who asked. He says that those who may have fewer individual achievements but serves as a major source of feedback and support for the people around them should be recognized.

A letter to the editor is presented concerning the commitment of scientists from industry and academia collaborating with the Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) to make synthetic probes.

The article discusses the changes in science in the digital age. The digital revolution transforms the creation, storage and transfer of knowledge which changes the paths scientists traverse to reach the goals of science. Scientists are able to access almost all important resources of literature with an Internet terminal. It is considered that the existence of high-tech lab equipment makes it easier to get more information, but, it does not necessarily improve science.

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 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.

This article presents information related to the Spanish general elections. In the run-up to the Spain's general election, public funding of research has made a rare foray into the headlines. Politicians have voiced their support for the country's scientists, to sign the "state pact for science" endorsed by the Spanish Society of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry. The document, signed by 11 of Spain's leading scientists, calls for a doubling of the proportion of gross domestic product spent on research and development by 2010. It demands a similar expansion of the country's scientific workforce.

Presents correspondence on honorary authorship for young scientists for abstruse technical details of papers.

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 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.

Criticizes the actions and decisions made by the panel making up the Copenhagen Consensus which was set up by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute to identify priorities for global action regarding poverty, health, hunger and the environment. Problem with the decision to allocate an additional $50 billion in spending by wealthy countries to address the world's biggest problems; Failure to mobilize an expert group that could credibly identify and communicate a true consensus of expert knowledge; Problems in the panel's conclusions which were at odds with the evidence under consideration.

Comments on the significance of allocation of credit for discoveries in science. Criteria in ranking the biomedical scientists; Factors influencing the ranking of the researchers; Introduction of impact-factor measurement to evaluate the performance of scientists; Changes in science research practice.

The article focuses on the controversy faced by climate scientist Phil Jones after he received electronic mail messages regarding his discovery of a mysterious drop of sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic Sea. It states that Jones was accused of scientific misconduct for allegedly attempting to put up an autocratic government by propagating false hysteria regarding global warming. It adds that Great Britain's parliament also did investigations on him, and declared that he was innocent.

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.

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.

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.

Profiles scientist Leslie Osborne. Career history; Achievements; Educational background.

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.

Presents several views on a commentary about the mislocations of credits in science by Peter Lawrence. Functions of the principal investigator; Variation on sociology of authorship; Reason for giving credits to the achievements of principal investigator.

Ponders on scientists' lack of emotional honesty in writing their research activities. Opinion of Sir Peter Medawar on scientific publications; Information on scientists' approach in writing scientific papers; Description of Herbert Moran's writing in his book `In My Fashion.'

The author reflects on the concerns raised by scientists and health-care economists concerning the personalized medicine. He states that personalized medicine aims to use the latest genomic knowledge and technologies to treat individuals, but health-care economists do not see it happening. He notes that complex biology and complex economics are two major problems facing the personalized approach, in which pathway involved is not well understood and most targeted drugs are expensive .

Explores the usability of the World Wide Web in the transfer of ideas between scientists. Recommendation on the use of collaborative technologies such as blogs and wikis; Feature of the OpenWetWare introduced by scientists at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Perception of scientists about the benefit of blog in promoting their work.

Discusses the practices of Japanese scientists regarding research. A report indicating that many Japanese scientists do not publish internationally; Percentage that publish only in Japanese journals; Focus on numerical output of research papers; Other findings of the study.

Advocates of homeopathy say that the rat study is evidence of the practice's efficacy, but some scientists have cast doubt on the paper. Advocates of homeopathy say that the rat study is evidence of the practice's efficacy, but some scientists have cast doubt on the paper., Author(s): Giorgia GuglielmiAuthor Affiliations:Peer-reviewed homeopathy study sparks uproar in Italy Homeopathic remedies are so heavily diluted in water or alcohol that none or only a few molecules of the active [...]

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 author discusses the use of metrics by evaluators for the assessment of the value of scientists. The author says that evaluators are turning to metrics, such as h-index and total citation count. The author states the objections by the scientists for the cold quantification of their scientific contribution. The author adds that scientists should continue to look for metrics that can capture the true value of a scientist in various aspects, such as public speaking, teaching, and reviewing.

The author discusses the difference of how journalists and scientists approach science reporting. He says that scientists are more capable of giving a disinterested version of events than politicians. He believes censorship is the responsible act for providing dangerous facts to readers in some cases. He also discusses secrecy which makes people question motives and puts the press in the position of delivering a message.