A*r
2 楼
re
C*e
3 楼
这个主意好
还可以弄到youtube上
还可以弄到youtube上
b*n
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。
【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*5
5 楼
good one.
g*5
6 楼
and conclusion, science is better quality...
l*i
7 楼
我出200伪币
最好图片多，文字少。文字多了人们不爱看
最好图片多，文字少。文字多了人们不爱看
l*i
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。
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*i
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。
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*e
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。
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。
m*n
11 楼
zan
A*4
12 楼
ding
k*i
13 楼
这个主意好
p*c
14 楼
我想这个做好了，nature会非常感谢你，它会声明打击学术行为不端一直是他们的目标
，现在抓出这些害群之马会使我们的期刊更纯洁，更高大。。。
【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。
，现在抓出这些害群之马会使我们的期刊更纯洁，更高大。。。
【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。
p*c
15 楼
我觉得很多人的想法还是非常幼稚，不成熟
和我们党似的，以前总怕抓出腐败分子，觉得这样丢人，会损害党的威信和地位；现在
不这么想了，抓出腐败分子，说明我们党对腐败零容忍，说明我们党的纪律机制很健全
。。。
西方比我们党在这种事情上的解释能力和水平又不知高了多少去了。。。
和我们党似的，以前总怕抓出腐败分子，觉得这样丢人，会损害党的威信和地位；现在
不这么想了，抓出腐败分子，说明我们党对腐败零容忍，说明我们党的纪律机制很健全
。。。
西方比我们党在这种事情上的解释能力和水平又不知高了多少去了。。。
C*e
16 楼
最后搞出了傅瑾的NATURE作假该咋办？
【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。
【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。
e*e
17 楼
大家主要是配合cns 净化学术风气的号召啊，不特别针对nature, 不过先搞谁那就是言
论自由了
【在 l*****i 的大作中提到】
: 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。
论自由了
【在 l*****i 的大作中提到】
: 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。
b*n
18 楼
一举两得，太好了
【在 C***e 的大作中提到】
: 最后搞出了傅瑾的NATURE作假该咋办？
【在 C***e 的大作中提到】
: 最后搞出了傅瑾的NATURE作假该咋办？
C*e
19 楼
然后NATURE说，看这就是中国人，欺骗成性
【在 b*****n 的大作中提到】
: 一举两得，太好了
【在 b*****n 的大作中提到】
: 一举两得，太好了
b*n
20 楼
你是羽联，骗我入坑
【在 C***e 的大作中提到】
: 然后NATURE说，看这就是中国人，欺骗成性
【在 C***e 的大作中提到】
: 然后NATURE说，看这就是中国人，欺骗成性
a*n
21 楼
这主意不错
其实这事本来就该做的
其实这事本来就该做的
相关阅读
这张图老么？ (转载)有谁知道医学营养学的大牛？打听一下Gaudenz实验室怎么样？生物博士的死期你还会让你的子女学生物吗？谁说生物没用，养鸟的都比医生水平高 (转载)paper help. Thanks a lot!转专业与转方向多是顺应了发展的需求版上负面话题好多，有不想转行的吗？说说理由？the similar findings in doctoral thesis vs. pubmed publication, who should get credit?有什么IN VIVO的方法看毛细血管生成？有没有人看了 five year engagement?免疫组化sectioning的问题复旦党委书记朱之文干得很努力(ZZ)14k的plasmid用lipofection2000转到细胞中会不会有困难？3M中国招人（上海）(请版主手下留情，多谢！)有谁申请过 cancer genome altas control的数据？求助转录因子结合位点分析求paper谁会用clc genomics workbench组装miseq测序的细菌基因组？各种参数啊