Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @PubPeer

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @PubPeer

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    25. stu 2019.

    We now have a extension that indicates which articles in your Zotero library have PubPeer comments. You can find it here. We're interested in any feedback!

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Obviously, more than a few people have asked me about the present dust-up in ecology right now. By purest good fortune, I have already written my opinion down. 18 months ago. On the 'bad apples in research' argument. This one feels a bit eerie.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    Alright. Inspired by this tweet, I decided to read all relevant preprints (about 30 in all). Here's what I've found, a thread. 1/15

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    And as Nick points out the one in a journal hasn't

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    The retraction happened before a single news outlet with any reach covered the paper, as best we can tell. But none of it was quite fast enough for some critics.

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    Reading the comments on re: . Truly fascinating. People debating over whether 1 spider can be touching 9 other spiders in 3d webs. Lots of modeling & graphs & ppl making spiders out of pipe cleaners to elucidate points. Riveting.

    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    If anyone wants to see some scientists joyfully demolishing Exley do pop over to PubPeer ( ):

    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. velj
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Don't understand either. Within hours flaws were identified in this preprint + comments. In my view peer review has worked well & this is how it should be. Although it would be great to better inform the public when a preprint is retracted. I think this is lacking for Biorxiv

    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    Let's talk about Hyrum's Law and what it means for screening standards. cc

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    I don’t understand the attack on preprints (because of the “virus is engineered” MS). *Owing* to the preprint the problems were identified & it didn’t reach the public. Someone forgot that “vaccines cause autism” was published in the Lancet? (Retracted after many years of damage)

    Poništi
  11. 1. velj
    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    I have to debunk this conspiracy theory because it is truly insane! So the claim is Scientists at Whuan have their CCR5 gene to immunize themselves against , which serves as a bioweapon but failed to properly edit CCR5. This doesn't make any sense or whatsoever.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    I'd say that may for-money journals are being willingly spammed with crap, and then spamming us. In the end, if you are happy with them and unhappy with preprints and PubPeer, the solution for you seems obvious.

    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    Odgovor korisnicima

    As a frequent commenter on (n=1800), both under my full name or anonymous in cases of litigious authors, I disagree. And I agree with many PubPeer posts about serious concerns about images, author affiliations, selective data picking, or conflicts of interest.

    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    I've checked it because this claim that HIV inserts in & not fortuitous is insane. So I aligned the sequences & those inserts are real. However I've blast those peptides & founds > 100 hits from various organisms. In my view - HIV link not ascertained.

    Tweet je nedostupan.
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 31. sij
    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    I can only assume every clever method developed to detect fake results becomes a unit test added to the fraudstr package that some determined cheat somewhere has written.

    Poništi
  18. 31. sij
    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    This paper has just been published on Biorxiv. I would be extremely interested in seeing comment from others working on 2019-nCoV sequencing, because its claims are. . .unusual, to say the least. But presented with data:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 31. sij

    You can now save a search in PubPeer and receive email alerts for new comment that match the search pattern.

    Poništi
  21. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    Latest Talking Tatas blog post - , Fact-checking, and How to (and NOT to) handle mistakes in published scientific literature.

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·