Peer 3
Absolutely right, without correct controls everything else can be trashed. But even when supposedly same gel blotting membrane is shown twice: 1) there are technical limitations of how many proteins…
Absolutely right, without correct controls everything else can be trashed. But even when supposedly same gel blotting membrane is shown twice: 1) there are technical limitations of how many proteins…
'Oncotarget' is on Beall's list of "potential, possible, or probable" predatory journals. So basically, these are not bona fide peer-reviewed papers (ie...
I read the article and the comments... and I must say I came to the opposite conclusions. I thought the article was kind of annoying whereas the comments were very enlightening...
Note: Do read the small print on the Oncotarget home page - the who's who of the Oncotarget editorial board are listed as "founding editorial board members"...
This is indeed bizarre. Oncotarget has a lot of who-is-whos on its editorial board (which of course says nothing of its real quality), but their papers have no DOIs !But this isn't a problem for…
I have found a cancer journal that is listed on PubMed but without DOIs. I am concerned because gel splicing occurs in some papers. See, for example, this paper:http://www...
Interesting post on the topic (with aggravating comments)http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2015/06/23/not_25_but_still_not_good.php
Peer 3: ( June 20th, 2015 9:49pm UTC )My apologies, I was wrong.What I saw is: "Elsewhere, I read as argument, these irregularities in Oksvold papers were proof that he was wrong calling out…
Peer 4, either I am not capable of expressing myself clearly or you are reading selected sections of a sentence only.
" irregularities in Oksvold papers were proof that he was wrong calling out inappropriate duplications as a problem". How does the former prove that the latter is wrong?You write that the…
Peer4, I have presented the argument made by others elsewhere and stated my opinion of it: that it is wrong. I can also elaborate here: it is wrong because it contradicts the concept of a scientific…
In reply to Unregistered Submission: ( June 20th, 2015 9:42pm UTC )The topic of this post is the Sci Eng Ethics PMID:26065681.Please look at the data in that paper...
In reply to Peer 3: ( June 20th, 2015 9:49pm UTC )"irregularities in Oksvold papers were proof that he was wrong calling out inappropriate duplications as a problem", but you are calling out "irregular…
In reply to Peer 2: ( June 20th, 2015 9:25pm UTC )I agree.
I absolutely agree. Elsewhere, I read as argument, these irregularities in Oksvold papers were proof that he was wrong calling out inappropriate duplications as a problem, but we have to accept those…
But isn't it all about data all the time on pubpeer? Regardless of the motivation of Unregistered Submission: ( June 20th, 2015 8:09pm UTC ), he/she has pointed out duplicated loading controls (with…
Well, it is ironic, but you're basically shooting the messenger. Whatever Oksvold has done or not in the past doesn't change the data: many, many papers contain apparent problems, and that isn't good…
This paper uncovers a variety of "data duplications" in life science publications.In a case of profound irony, the author's previous publications contain the very same type of duplication that is…