The inadvertent? image-duplication in the human clone paper still creates some unrest, maybe less so with regard to what this means for the core results of the study (it seems most people think that those will hold) than with regard to the thoroughness of the peer-review and the ability to detect irregularities in high-profile publications…
Staying with the topic of publishing: when PeerJ was announced last year (see e.g. a Nature News feature), I was a bit skeptical about how this would go, but I have to admit that my impression about the first articles that have been put online this week is quite positive. Not only are there catchy…
A news article in the upcoming edition of Nature highlights a new kid on the block in the battle for the publishing system of the future – it’s called Rubriq, a company that wants to “outsource” the review process from the normal publication process. Very similar to what Peerage of Science provides, but as a…
It’s funny who reads your posts, one cannot be careful enough 😉 – Science contacted me regarding my recent note on Jennifer Couzin-Frankel’s piece “Shaking up Science”, asking to spread the information that there will be a live web chat on that topic: At 3pm EST Thursday, February 7, Science magazine will be running a…
Last week’s Science issue had an interesting News Focus about “Two journal editors [that] take a hard look at honesty in science and question the ethos of their profession” With a bit too much pathos for my taste, but informative nevertheless, the article gives background on Ferric Fang and Arturo Casadevall, two microbiologists, and their…
In theoretical physics, I was used to the fact that, at the point of submitting a manuscript to a journal, most authors would make this manuscript available to the community by uploading it on a public preprint server (in physics, this server is practically always the arXiv). These preprints also act as a database that…
theoretical ecology 