Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
med-mastodon.com is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Medical community on Mastodon

Administered by:

Server stats:

414
active users

med-mastodon.com: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#pubpeer

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public *
El Duvelle

Hi #Academics,

When you read a paper in your field and disagree with something that the authors did (e.g. interpret results incorrectly) or did not do (e.g. not cite an extremely relevant paper), how do you usually react:

#Research #Academia #AcademicChatter #ScientificPublications #Pubpeer
Edited to add the Pubpeer option, you might have to vote again, sorry

· 136 people · Closed
Public
Christian Meesters

And another article published with yours truthfully as co-author and the use of #Snakemake on HPC-clusters: doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2025.

Whilst at least #OpenAccess it still does not adhere to #OpenScience principles, e.g. #FAIR and transparent data sharing. Sometimes it's hard to draw people away from the dark force. If anyone criticises this article on #PubPeer, I would not mind.

The workflow itself is in the Snakemake workflow catalogue - I wanted to write a paper about it last autumn. Might be sometime later this spring, now. Too much at hand ...

Public
Christian Meesters

An evening rant: In #bioinformatics, we should have a systematic way to point out or declare where missing data fail us to proceed.

The lousily annotated genome, the data, which are (not) available on request or the paper, which — after a while — turned out to contain way too many methodical holes to be merit the tag #ReproducibleResearch.

Yes, there is #PubPeer. It is not enough. There still is not enough pressure for change.

#OpenScience
Public
Joseph Lim :mastodon:

For fediversers interested in #science and the rigor of scientific #research, this #nakedcapitalism article is a weekend #mustread 🙏 #PubPeer #RetractionWatch

I knew of the problems with plagiarism & zealous dissemination of pre/non peer-reviewed research papers, much thru electronic socialization of respected journal platforms, which had contributed to rising pseudo-research, but was flabbergasted by the actual depth & breadth of it.🧐🫨🔬

The Rise of the Science Sleuths
nakedcapitalism.com/2024/09/th

naked capitalism · The Rise of the Science Sleuths | naked capitalismWhen an Alzheimer’s paper came under scrutiny, correcting the scientific record meant battling much bigger problems.
Public *
Mathias Micheel

Two years ago, in July 2022, I was reading on a specific molecule class for a set of experiments for a cooperation partner. I read an excellent review article, but it was missing some angle, so I looked for another review article. And realized... They were the same? I checked and that article plagiarized 90 % of the original review article. I wrote about it on pubpeer. #chemiverse #publishing #academia #chemistry #pubpeer #ScientificMisconduct (1/x) pubpeer.com/publications/AD85B

pubpeer.comPubPeer - Eosin Y catalysed photoredox synthesis: a reviewThere are comments on PubPeer for publication: Eosin Y catalysed photoredox synthesis: a review (2017)
Public *
Victoria Stuart 🇨🇦 🏳️‍⚧️

Prevalence of Problematic Papers in Non-Coding RNA Research
biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/20

* prevalence of problematic papers in field of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) research
* 1.79% retracted; 5.68% raised concerns on PubPeer
* unreliable papers widely disseminated
* hundreds of thousands citations
* significant threat to research integrity / public health

bioRxiv · Prevalence of Problematic Papers in Non-Coding RNA ResearchThis study examines the prevalence of problematic papers in the rapidly growing field of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) research. Analysis of 153,826 ncRNA papers during 2000-2023 reveals that around 1.79% have been retracted and an additional 5.68% have raised concerns on PubPeer. The number of problematic papers has steadily increased, peaking in 2019 when the concerning and retraction rates reached nearly 10.8% and 3.7%, respectively. These unreliable papers have been widely disseminated, accumulating hundreds of thousands of citations in academic literature, patents, clinical trials, and policy documents, posing a significant threat to research integrity and public health. The main issues identified include image manipulation, data falsification, fake peer reviews, and ethical lapses. The findings call for urgent, comprehensive scrutiny of ncRNA publications and broader reforms to address systemic problems driving the proliferation of problematic research. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.
#biology#MolecularBiology#MolecularGenetics
Public
Dorothy Bishop

I was a bit dubious about this study in the Guardian theguardian.com/science/articl, and now it's led me down a rabbit hole finding loads of papers that misused G*power and are consequently badly underpowered .
And the original 'brain stimulation eases hearbreak" paper is looking v problematic.
pubpeer.com/publications/97F44
#statistics #brainstimulation #PubPeer

The Guardian · Electrical brain stimulation can ease heartbreak, study findsBy Caroline Davies
Public
Christian Meesters

My wife works in a small town and has to deal with someone who thinks that high-frequency radiation from mobile phone masts makes people and plants sick. Consequently, the administration gets flooded with open letters, sciency claims and scientific papers which apparently support those wacky claims.

There are many papers which
- seemingly support those claims or
- are IMO examples of bad science.

Funny observation: Not a single one received #PubPeer entry.

ExploreLive feeds
About