Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review

Frontiers in Genetics

Volumn 6, Issue JUN, 2015, Pages

  Galbraith, David W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Fraudulent data; Internet publication; Post publication review; Scientific misconduct; Scientific reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FLOW CYTOMETRY; FUNDING; GENE EXPRESSION; HISTOGRAM; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; MASS COMMUNICATION; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION;

EID: 84940105997     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16648021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00198     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Abbott, A. (2013). Image search triggers Italian police probe. Nature 504, 18. doi: 10.1038/504018a.
2. Bartneck, C., and Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 87, 85-98. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0306-5.
3. Bastian, H. (2014). A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science. PLoS Med. 11:e1001772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001772.
4. Begley, C. G., and Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533. doi: 10.1038/483531a.
5. Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., and Fang, F. C. (2014). Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J. doi: 10.1096/fj.14-256735.
6. Cokol, M., Lossifov, I., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., and Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Rep. 8, 422-423. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400970.
7. Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., and Rodriguez-Esteban, R. (2008). Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep. 9, 2. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401143.
8. Fang, F. C., Casadevall, A., and Morrison, R. P. (2011). Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect. Immun. 79, 3855-3859. doi: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11.
9. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., and Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 17028-17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
10. Faulkes, Z. (2014). The vacuum shouts back: postpublication peer review on social media. Neuron 82, 258-260. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.032.
11. Galbraith, D. W. (2006). The daunting process of MIAME. Nature 444, 31. doi: 10.1038/444031b.
12. Gao, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, D., Dai, X., Estelle, M., and Zhao, Y. (2015). Auxin binding protein 1 (ABP1) is not required for either auxin signaling or Arabidopsis development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 2275-2280. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500365112.
13. Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., and Jennions, M. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of P-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 13:e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106.
14. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2:e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
15. Kok, F. O., Shin, M., Ni, C. W., Gupta, A., Grosse, A. S., van Impel, A., et al. (2015). Reverse genetic screening reveals poor correlation between morpholino-induced and mutant phenotypes in zebrafish. Dev. Cell 32, 97-108. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2014.11.018.
16. Liu, S. V. (2006). Top journals' top retraction rates. Sci. Ethics 1, 91-93.
17. Neimark, J. (2015). Line of attack. Science 347, 938-940. doi: 10.1126/science.347.6225.938.
18. Nuzzo, R. (2014). Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature 506, 150-152. doi: 10.1038/506150a.
19. Prinz, F., Schlange, T., and Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1.
20. Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., and Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife 3:e02956. doi: 10.7554/eLife.02956.
21. Taigman, Y., Yang, M., Ranzato, M., and Wolf, L. (2014). "DeepFace: closing the gap to human-level performance in face verification," in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Columbus, OH. pp. 1701-1708. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2014.220.
22. Vaux, D. (1998). Retraction of News and Views article "Immunology: Ways around rejection" (Nature 377, 576-577; 1995). Nature 394, 133. doi: 10.1038/28067.
23. Vaux, D. (2013). Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about correcting the scientific record. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/06/19/why-i-retracted-my-nature-paper-a-guest-post-from-david-vaux-about-correcting-the-scientific-record/.
24. Yong, E., Ledford, H., and Van Noorden, R. (2013). Three ways to blow the whistle. Nature 503, 454-457. doi: 10.1038/503454a.