Before two papers passed the peer-review and got published, WHO (which was given the data) made its own interpretation of the findings and included it in its press kit, including the errors they made in that interpretation. A complex story - what's your take on it?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There's an article in yesterday's New York Times about doubts the public is having about the goodness of scientific publications as they learn more about what the peer-review system does, and does not, involve. It's worth a read, if only to illuminate what non-scientists seem to have assumed went…
Robert Bruce Thompson is the author of Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments, a book I have and like, but cannot really use as it is hard to get the chemicals. Thompson now writes a guest popst on MAKE blog: Home science under attack
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports that…
tags: researchblogging.org, female scientists, science publishing, double-blind review, single-blind review, cultural observation, gender bias, sexism, feminism
A microbiologist at work.
Image: East Bay AWIS.
A few months ago, a controversy occurred in the blogosphere regarding whether…
The academic world and its detractors are all a-tizzy about this recent news reported here:
Springer, a major science and medical publisher, recently announced the retraction of 64 articles from 10 of its journals. The articles were retracted after editors found the authors had faked the peer-…
WHO should strive to be as trustworthy as humanly possible. Period. Shame on them.