Retractions of scholarly articles are a rare event, affecting only about 0.02-0.04% of articles in total (but yearly rates are going up dramatically). This means that data about retractions are not even close to being representative of the scholarly literature […] ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
tl;dr: Data from thousands of non-retracted articles indicate that experiments published in higher-ranking journals are less reliable than those reported in ‘lesser’ journals. Vox health reporter Julia Belluz has recently covered the reliability of peer-review. In her follow-up piece, she […] ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
In the last “Science Weekly” podcast from the Guardian, the topic was retractions. At about 20:29 into the episode, Hannah Devlin asked, whether the reason ‘top’ journals retract more articles may be because of increased scrutiny there. The underlying assumption […] ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
Yesterday, Science Magazine published a news story (not a peer-reviewed paper) by Gonzo-Scientist John Bohannon on a sting operation in which a journalist submitted a bogus manuscript to 304 open access journals (observe that no toll access control group was […] ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
This is a slightly edited (amended, essentially) version of my article published today at The Conversation. In cases where a problem within a community is detected and collective action is required to address the problem. one needs to strike a […] ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
Video von YouTube laden. Dabei können personenbezogene Daten an Drittanbieter übermittelt werden. Hinweise zum Datenschutz
bjoern.brembs.blog by Björn Brembs is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
theme modified from Easel