Having enjoyed Faz’s discussion on the current situations of scientific publishing arms everywhere I think it is important to also restore a little faith in the community regarding Peer Review processes that do in fact work.
What comes to mind first? Soylent, while I personally think their founder is a nut job and most likely wrong, I don’t believe he is trying to scam anyone. His ego truly believes in his product. Next I suppose you could suggest anything built by Lucius Fox or Tony Stark, like the city wide cell phone surveilance in The…
There are many flaws in our current system Peer Review. Going by my previous articles, you may think that it’s dying. But it’s not over yet. Smart people have been working on ways to fix Peer Review.
Here’s one of those head pounding examples of wasted potential. An amateur fossil hunter, Edgar Nernberg in Canada has long been a contributor to creationist museums recently found five fish fossils. He knew that the right thing to do was to get them to a (real) paleontologist.
Last week we saw how bad studies can get published when scientists commit fraud. Today, we see how Peer Review can allow erroneous studies to be published, and why people have been saying that Peer Review is broken.
Last time, we left the story with Peer Review reigning triumphant. Did the king truly deserve his crown ? Can a magic marker pen, a kidney and a gmail account help you cheat Peer Review ?
This is the first of a multi-part series on Peer Review. We’re starting right at the beginning, delving into its very origins, and finding out how it came to truly dominate the scientific discourse.
In 2007, Dr. Jill Pruetz reported an extraordinary discovery: chimpanzees in southeastern Senegal were using spears to hunt their food. And slightly stranger still, it seemed like the females were doing a lot of the spearing.
Today, a group of researchers from New York have found that the spherical sulfur oxidizing bacteria - Thivulum majus group up together and form crystals to swim.
I was recently challenged to write a science piece about “Air Bud”. A nearly impossible task, you may think. You’d be right, nearly impossible. But when watching it for the first time today, I discovered a message at this movies heart that’s far more interesting than “Can a Dog play Basketball?”
In "I'm sure this will never be used for evil" news, a team of scientists at MIT announced yesterday that they developed a way to directly stimulate neurons through the use of magnetic nano-particles … Yay!
I actually laughed when I came across this research article in this week's Science, titled "Conservatives report, but liberals display, greater happiness."
This week, researchers announced the discovery of a brand new Herpes vaccine. But as with any great break through, we should ask whether it really is worth throwing a parade for ?
Wow, aren't Pandas useless creatures ? They can barely survive in their natural habitat, on a barely nutritious food source, and can barely breed. So why not let them go extinct ? Because those statements are only true if you assume their natural habitat is in a Zoo.
The news has been abuzz with excitement over Teixobactin, the first brand new antibiotic that has been discovered in decades. What's the truth behind the breathless headlines ? What should we really be excited about ?