Rezultati pretraživanja
  1. 30. sij

    . provides more context and important considerations re: . Everyone involved with this mess is human (including Jonathan) so I'll just reiterate the need for patience and as much understanding as possible.

  2. 30. sij

    Now up on Eco-Evo Evo-Eco blog, two posts on The first is a neutral narrative about my role and insight. The second link to a growing spreadsheet listing retractions, questions, and papers that are confirmed to be OK

  3. 30. sij

    There are also good things to notice from . Co-authors and others that got data from Pruitt have absolutely done the right thing, which shows us that a lot of people CAN be trusted. If anything, this shows us the importance of replicating and examining other studies!

    Prikaži ovu nit
  4. 30. sij

    I strongly recommend reading Dan's blog for a balanced, professional, considerate, and personal account of

    Prikaži ovu nit
  5. The thing that I am the most upset about regarding is not the false data (that is unacceptable) but that many junior scientists from his lab were inadvertently pulled into these allegations and even to the lies. My heart is with them.

  6. 2. velj

    After , , or , people wonder why someone would tamper with their own data. If I look at my own experience in prominent places (Ivy League and others), it seems pretty obvious.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  7. 30. sij

    It's sad to see transpire, as I was in the same PhD cohort at with Jonathan. I'm reserving judgement at this time and encourage others to do the same until a full examination of past studies is conducted. But I'm disturbed by what's been uncovered to date.

  8. 31. sij

    Still digesting this whole thing. I really feel for the people who, by no fault of their own, now have to deal with this bs.

  9. 2. velj

    One thought I haven’t seen discussed re: - many of the reviews are listed as ok b/c they don’t contain data - but if those reviews rely heavily on Pruitt’s papers to suggest broad patterns, they could have similarly problematic impact, no?

  10. 30. sij

    Wow, is this what they call the smoking gun? It's hard keeping up with developments in the last day. Surely we can have a hastag now about this?

  11. 31. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    I feel it is very, very important that we think of the students involved when discussing . We have to imagine being them, how they must feel. Let's keep the comments nuanced and let's be kind (as you have done).

  12. 31. sij
  13. 1. velj

    Like I'm sure so many right now, I am following with immense interest, anger, but also so much curiosity! As an who is in constant fear that my current contract or grant will be my last because I am not a prolific enough publisher, I can empathise..1/3

    Prikaži ovu nit
  14. 2. velj

    In light of the weak and unsatisfactory response by in the recent Science-piece to allegations of fraud, I think it is necessary to take a strong stand against unacceptable and unethical behaviours in science

  15. 1. velj

    While, at one level, can deepen cynicism about how the production of science can be perverted, at another, the exemplary integrity, fairness and compassion of and under pressure shows how such crises could redeem the practise of science.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  16. 31. sij

    In light of recent developments with I would like to come clean about my own lapse in academic integrity, which coincidentally also occurred at UC Santa Barbara. 1/12

    Prikaži ovu nit
  17. 30. sij
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Plus people have profited professionally off of papers and cit scores built on thin air. Where's the reward for those who had to compete with papers earned fair and square

  18. Odgovor korisnicima

    I am still unable to understand if the lack of sympathy I have for Pruitt is normal or too aggressive? Also, I am unable to justify why there should be 'sympathy' or 'empathy' at all? We are talking bad science and data manipulations here - right?

  19. 1. velj

    Yesterday, I've heard about for the first time. I've spent most of the morning reading about it. Will the data falsification proven to be true or not, to me this is another warning that still-increasing pressure to publish leads to bad science and terrible practices

  20. 31. sij

    Ugly data are good data, it's just a shame most researchers don't see it that way. I thought it was widely accepted that observational data are messy. The sooner academia can reduce the pressure of observational & behavioral data being neat and normal, the better.

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.