| Homepage |
| Search |
The editor-in-chief says that scientists are obliged to be honest, and comments on the need to guarantee clear, truthful presentations of data, results, and methods which are essential for enabling the findings of one scientist to be confirmed, refuted, or extended in new ways by other scientists. “Authors, reviewers, and editors of scientific manuscripts should therefore constantly ask themselves whether the reader has been provided with everything needed to both understand and reproduce the results.” Journals should set a higher bar for the clarity of presentation in the manuscripts that we publish. The final comment is that “As scientists and as journal publishers, we can and we must do better.” doi: 10.1126/science.1165268 www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/full/321/5894/1271 Brandon D; Santic B. Reflections on the Schön affair. Physics World 2009;22(7):19. Two separate letters commenting on this case of fraud. Brandon discusses earlier cases such as “Piltdown man” and points out that false accusations are not uncommon, quoting a particular case that ruined a scientist’s career. Santic discusses the position of co-authors and suggests four categories - writer, worker, provider, and leader - to help avoid some of the pitfalls of the Schön case. Editorial. The insider’s guide to plagiarism. Scientific plagiarism—a problem as serious as fraud—has not received all the attention it deserves. Nature Medicine 2009;15:707. A little creative writing might be all you need to sail through the financial crisis, says the author of this editorial on plagiarism, which is full of humour and sadness at the same time. “Tweak the data so that the numbers are not identical but remain realistic; and, when you’re ready to write it all up, paraphrase the original paper ad libitum. Last, submit your new manuscript to a modest journal in the hopes that the authors of the paper you used as ‘inspiration’ won’t notice your ‘tribute’ to their work.” The conclusion is that the community needs to set appropriate standards and penalties to fight plagiarism. doi:10.1038/nm0709-707 www.nature.com/nm/journal/v15/n7/full/nm0709-707.html Pointon T. Fraud, misinformation and the open culture. Physics World. 2009;22(8):20. The questions opened by the Schön case of scientific fraud are much broader than just science. The plea by Michael Nielson (Physics World 2009;22(5):30-35) for a more “open” culture on science might lead to an overload of unchecked information. The author of this letter questions why the devices Schön claimed to have made were not checked for their existence or if they worked. © Copyright 2009 by European Association of Science Editors Top of Page |
|
|