| Search results - "Peer" |
Logical Biology: The Appropriate Place to Communicate Ground-Breaking Biomedical Discoveries
Ground-breaking discoveries are difficult to make and even more difficult to publish if such discoveries are at odds with the dominant view in their research fields. For this kind of discoveries, Logical Biology is the appropriate place because it treats every author equally and judges the manuscript only by its content. We have been paying close attention to the scientific reliability of the observation yet focus even more on the logical soundness of the reasoning.
Abstract
|
|
The Lost Generation of Scientists?
Compared with the winning of Nobel Prizes at young ages by our father’s generation of scientists, scientists now even had a hard time to start their independent research career at young ages. However, this delay in starting financial independency for research may just be a minor cause as compared with the life-time tight control of senior scientists over junior scientists for the loss of young generation of scientists in realizing their research potentials. An examination of Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology revealed that no one younger than 47 years has won such prize since 1986. More intriguing than this, Nobel Prizes awarded in recent two decades rarely went to their contemporary researchers but often went to our father’s or even grandfather’ generation of scientists who made their discoveries decades ago.
Abstract
|
|
Science and Art: Even More Akin than Hitherto PresumedA fallacious technical comment and several misconceptions were contained in a recent review published in the May 2007 issue of Scientific American. Although an effort to point out these mistakes in a proposed Letter to the Editor was undertaken on June 11, 2007, Scientific American rejected this suggested contribution on the grounds of being “too late” to be under consideration (!).
Abstract
|
|
Honesty in Scientific Debate and Ethics for Scientific ResearchIn order to “win” a debate in front of editors some “scientists” would rather resort to cheating and misrepresentation. A recent debate on authorship and knowledge creation shows a typical case of such dishonesty and nonobjectivity in scientific debate.
Abstract
|
|
Censorship, Misconduct, Fraud, Peer review, Publishing pressure, and Impact Factor
“Top” journals have blamed authors and even their institutions for giving them bad (later known) papers to publish. However, who are the people that actually picked up these good papers (perceived then) among so many submissions (over 90% of them are rejected) and published them in high-profile? Why “top” scandals were so frequent in the “top” journals? Does the high impact factor of the “top” journals also include these high negative impacts on science? Why didn’t “top” journal confess their mistakes and even misconduct in publishing?
Abstract
|
|
|
|
