Rezultati pretraživanja
  1. prije 6 sati

    Me: You know Jonathan Pruitt? Biologist: I was on the committee that gave him the CPB postdoc. Me: Do you remember the runner-up? Bio: It was a woman... she did long field experiments. She discovered a new species of ant. I don't remember her name Me: (heart breaks)

  2. 1. velj

    If there's something positive for me in , I feel as a young scientist this experience has shown me just how important keeping REALLY excellent records of raw data/analyses and making my data publicly available are.

  3. 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
  4. 1. velj

    This article hurts . Data patterns don’t lie. People do. Don’t support a swap of victim and perpetrator roles.

  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. 1. velj

    Another thing that has come out of & is need to tackle the issue of valuing "significant" findings. This requires culture change in the academy. How often have u heard a newbie student (or even seasoned pro) say "UNFORTUNATELY we didn't find signif results.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  7. 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

  8. Odgovor korisniku/ci

    The formula of hyperproductivity in HI journals that favour publishing significant results/large effect sizes as a path to prestigious grants/chairs must be scrutinized. It’s not rocket science to see how the systemic structures in place played a role here.

  9. 30. sij

    A comment on blog: we ( and others) started our investigations after being alerted by a junior scientist with inside information. I am most grateful to this . This anonymous scientist deserves our thanks and gratitude

    Prikaži ovu nit
  10. 2. velj

    Full account of the last major case of alleged scientific misconduct in behavioral ecology (the AP Møller case). Must-read for anyone interested in A Fluctuating Reality

    Prikaži ovu nit
  11. 1. velj
  12. 2. velj

    This piece is response to . My heart goes out to the collaborators, students, editors, and everyone who's been personally affected by this shocking and heartbreaking situation.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  13. 3. velj

    Today I was introduced by a colleague as a spider behavioral ecologist and the room went awfully quiet. Lets make sure to not throw any babies out with the bathwater as we move forward.

  14. 1. velj
  15. prije 11 sati

    Well written and balanced article, and plenty more angles I hadn't considered.

  16. 2. velj

    So many BAD takes on on these internets, w many folks wrapping it into their pet issues academia. I think there is a GOOD take - and it is that of the honest hardworking co-authors & those affected & people digging into the data - we're lucky to hear from them. 1/2

    Prikaži ovu nit
  17. 31. sij

    Victims may also be found in those who were not involved with these publications but failed to get funding or jobs when they were ranked against other scientists with a superficially more impressive looking publication record.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  18. prije 12 sati

    No idea which motive drove him. That needs sorting in own right. But a thought: Publication bias is equivalent to multiple testing + cherry picking Remove ephasis on "significance" so long as study is well powered = Less bias, less motive, fairer field.

  19. 2. velj

    1/3 As an outsider to this situation, hearing that everything that has come out are "all mistakes (...) not unheard of in data management" is a bit odd and really comes across as gaslighting

    Prikaži ovu nit
  20. 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?

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.