不如，我们来做个Nature文章造假大集锦？ - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Biology - 生物学

不如，我们来做个Nature文章造假大集锦？

不如，我们来做个Nature文章造假大集锦？# Biology - 生物学

k*o2012-08-03 07:08

1 楼

大家一起搜集一些上面的造假文章，合并做成个pdf，放到网上共享，多好啊。

A*r2012-08-03 07:08

2 楼

C*e2012-08-03 07:08

3 楼

这个主意好
还可以弄到youtube上

b*n2012-08-03 07:08

4 楼

这个更有可行性。

【在 k****o 的大作中提到】

: 大家一起搜集一些上面的造假文章，合并做成个pdf，放到网上共享，多好啊。

g*52012-08-03 07:08

5 楼

good one.

g*52012-08-03 07:08

6 楼

and conclusion, science is better quality...

l*i2012-08-03 07:08

7 楼

我出200伪币
最好图片多，文字少。文字多了人们不爱看

l*i2012-08-03 07:08

8 楼

现阶段抵制Nature，我们实力还不够。
除了好好做实验，这个方案最可行了。
最好是挑那些英国鬼子造假的文章，子刊也行。

l*i2012-08-03 07:08

9 楼

还有如果能弄的幽默点，传播更广。
最好是挑那种明显作假还没有撤稿的。
我们可以在FB上转发少数几个具有代表性的，然后给个链接列个长长的List。

h*e2012-08-03 07:08

10 楼

就用这个做为NEWS
发信人: MHP (马后炮), 信区: Biology
标题: 关于nature造假文章。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 15:17:44 2012, 美东)
Why a Nature article raises suspicions.
'Open comments' could help to dispel doubts.
In a published Nature article, how many errors are too many? That question
has haunted German researcher Amparo Acker-Palmer after she and her
colleagues published a study in Nature “Ephrin Bs are essential components
of the Reelin pathway to regulate neuronal migration.” in April 2011. In
the wake of that publication, many readers wondered whether Palmer’s
publication was aided by fabricating the figures. She has never been proved
manipulation in her publications and the editorial office of Nature issued a
correction declared that her publication was simply an error in image
choice. There is no debate with any racial and political undertones: One
with little scientific training can figure out that the original figures are
fake. We reexamine how a renowned Journal covered up this mishandling in
their editorial office and whether the limits of human errors could be used
to catch cheaters.
Was Palmer’s article anomalous?
Yes. The Figure 1b and c are supposed to come from two different mice.
However, the patterns between penal b and c are exactly the same, suggesting
they are actually from the same image. These similarities are, of course,
human errors as claimed by the authors. But what really raised eyebrows was
the total number of errors the authors made in the entire manuscript, in
which 11 figures in total are corrected for “human errors”. The number of
errors included in this Corrigendum is more than any other Corrigendum of a
single paper published in Nature over the past several years.
Doesn't a self-claimed human error rule out the possibility of cheating?
No, says many fellow scientists in the Universities around U.S. and overseas
. Researchers are much more likely to make mistakes while conducting their
experiments. Usually when they found out, the results will not be written in
a manuscript. Following Palmer’s publication, “Everyone will pass at the
editorial office of Nature. Hardly anyone retracts their fabricated results
in Nature,” many scientists say.

【在 l*****i 的大作中提到】

: 还有如果能弄的幽默点，传播更广。
: 最好是挑那种明显作假还没有撤稿的。
: 我们可以在FB上转发少数几个具有代表性的，然后给个链接列个长长的List。