When Fraud Hits Medical Science: The Decade of the Vaccine-Autism Scandal
Now that the vaccine-autism link has been shown to be based on a fraud, will ego continue to trump humility in the face of evidence?
Now that the vaccine-autism link has been shown to be based on a fraud, will ego continue to trump humility in the face of evidence?
An interesting and entertaining debunking of some obvious fluffs in medical science, with a chilling reminder of how libel laws in some countries can kill scientific discourse.
With the economic benefits of open access open to reinterpretation, will the moral benefits prove sufficient to withstand the coming scrutiny? And will it all begin a race to the bottom?
Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary must be acknowledged, and its seismic, worldwide redefinition of the reference work recognized.
Why hasn’t scientific publishing been disrupted? The question created one of the year’s most-read posts.
Should institutional open access repositories be run like journals?
A problem in recruiting competent peer-reviewers may be the fault of email spam blockers, not the unwillingness of academics to review.
After wondering at the supposed burden of peer-review, more evidence emerged that it still works well, and is probably less taxing than other alternatives.
The movement to publish more and more demands that we find ways to preserve the trust we’ve built while taking advantage of the sunlight public availability can provide.
If submission fees result in a more sustainable business model, why are open access publishers opposed to the idea?
Do the benefits of open peer-review outweigh the costs? A BMJ study argues “yes,” but there are caveats.
Is there demand for open access journals in the social sciences and humanities? Or does Sage see opportunities in unspent equity funds?
Another scandal rocks medical journal publishing. It’s time to stop pretending journals can salvage this on their own. It’s time to bring modern solutions to bear.
Who impersonates Michael Caine better? You be the judge.
EMBO opens up the black box of peer-review. Is it worth the cost?