How Bad Papers Get Published in Good Journals

How Bad Papers Get Published in Good Journals

From http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/how-bad-papers-get-published-in-good.html

 

Donald Williamson used to be a marine biologist. He has some strange ideas about evolution. He thinks, for example, that the reason why butterflies have distinct larval and adult stages is because they arose from the fusion of two separate species—a larva-like species and a butterfly-like species.

Lots of us have crazy ideas but it's a real challenge to get them published in the peer-reviewed literature, and that's how it should be. The reason why science is so successful as a way of knowing is, in part, because it's dominated by skepticism and a requirement for evidence-based rational thought. The system sometimes impedes the acceptance of real innovative ideas but not for long. What is does do successfully, however, is weed out the kooks. But even that doesn't work all the time.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is a prestigious journal that's run by the National Academy of Sciences. Once elected to the academy, members have some special privileges when it comes to publishing in the journal. They can "contribute" one of their own papers, in which case they can have a great deal of influence on choosing reviewers, or they can "communicate" the paper of a friend or colleague, in which case they choose the reviewers and send the reviews to the editor of the journal.

It's easy to see the potential for abuse but the remarkable thing is that the process actually works quite well. The quality of papers "contributed" or "communicated" is, in general, no worse than that of papers published in other front-line journals. Two of my own papers were "contributed by" my former Ph.D. supervisor and the process was a rigorous as any other.

But when the system fails, it fails spectacularly.

Lynn Margulis is a member of the National Academy. She "communicated" a paper by Donald Williamson on his strange idea about butterfly evolution (Williamson 2009). That's when the excrement hit the fan.

The editor of PNAS, Randy Schekman, has announced that the "communicated by" option for members will end in July 2010 [PNAS Nixes Special Privileges for (Most) Papers] The Science article reporting on this change in policy leaves little doubt about what prompted it.

An example of alleged gamesmanship popped up online 28 August in PNAS. Lynn Margulis, the noted biologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, communicated a paper by Donald Williamson, a retired marine biologist in the United Kingdom. In it, Williamson promoted his longheld, intriguing—and, say most other biologists, almost certainly misguided—theory about the origins of caterpillars and butterflies. Current biological theory argues that they were always a single species and that each stage evolved via natural selection. Williamson argues instead that two distinct species (one caterpillar-like, one butterfly-like) somehow fused into a hybrid way back when. One species' sperm must have fertilized the other's eggs, transferring genes laterally across species in a non-Mendelian fashion.

Margulis was unavailable for comment, but Williamson says, "Lynn Margulis is prepared to put her name and reputation on the line" to prove that "genome mergers" occur in evolution, a position his paper supports. He also says he knows that Margulis sent his paper to a half-dozen academy reviewers. Williamson says that he thinks they were all positive reviews, but Margulis told Scientific American last week that she canvassed six or seven reviewers to find the two positive reviews necessary to push the paper through.

Shame on you, Lynn Margulis, You've made some outstanding contributions to biology over the years—endosymbioisis being the best example—but it's time to hang up your hat and retire gracefully. Your latest ideas are totally wacky and your inability to distinguish between science and fantasy—as evidenced in your promotion of the Williamson paper—is an embarrassment to those of us who, for several decades, have been holding you up as an example of a successful and creative scientist.

MDPI, a questionable OA publisher

MDPI is an OA publisher with questionable legitimacy.
It was published in Switzerland, but all editorials are in fact done in China.

Several controversial papers were published
Including:
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/16/more-controversy-over-open-access-publisher-mdpi/

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/mislabeled-chemical-bottle-leads-to-retraction-of-liver-protection-paper/#more-13705


Erik Andrulis, an assistant professor of molecular at Case Western University, has published an article in a new peer-reviewed journal called Life. His "theoretical framework," he says, "unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe."

The paper lays out a completely new way of answering the most basic questions of our universe. "In this work," it reads, "I have pursued and arrived at a scientific answer to the Schrödingerian question, 'What is Life?'" That answer has something to do with "gyres."

"The central idea of this theory is that all physical reality, stretching from the so-called inanimate into the animate realm and from micro- to meso- to macrocosmic scales, can be interpreted and modeled as manifestations of a single geometric entity, the gyre. This entity is attractive because it has life-like characteristics, undergoes morphogenesis, and is responsive to environmental conditions."

The paper is impenetrably dense; making your way through its 105 pages (more than half of which are made up of an insane eight hundred citations) feels like hacking through an unexplored jungle with a machete. But it's all about gyres. Planets are made of gyres (and thus sort of alive, sort of). People are made of gyres. Electrons are gyres. A gyre has a gyre inside it. I think. There's not really any testable science in the paper; there are no proofs or experiments or really any evidence at all. But it sure is grandiose. This is one of my favorite lines: "I refer the reader to the Theory section for a complete presentation of theoretical answers to many of science's most challenging questions."
We see weirdo papers at a pretty regular clip, but usually they're pretty easy to pick out. If we're linked to a paper written by someone affiliated with no academic institution, published in the web-only, non-peer-reviewed Steve's Journal of Flying Saucers and Also Climate Change Is a Conspiracy, we can pretty well expect that what we're going to get might be a little suspect. But Andrulis works at the very well-regarded Case Western University, has published several comparatively sober papers on ribonuclease and its interaction with living cells, and Life, though new, has a bunch of respectable academics and scientists on its editorial board. At least two peer reviewers accepted the paper for publication.
Life's editorial board seems as surprised as anyone else at the content of this article; Stephen Mojzsis, a geochemist at the University of Colorado, resigned from the board in response.
I spoke to another member of the board, who wished to remain unnamed, and he said he had not read the paper before publication. (The editorial board members are just volunteers, not full-time editors.) The board member seemed, through his concern that the paper would undermine serious study of the origin of life, a little amused, and not entirely convinced it's not a hoax. "If it wasn't for his one 'Ohiogyre' definition, I'd be convinced it was a case of him really thinking he contributed something phenomenal," he said. "But 'Ohiogyre'? Really?"
Case Western, which had published a glowing, uncritical press release announcing the publication of the article, took it down. Ars Technica and others have questioned how the review process might have gone wrong.
Dr. Andrulis wasn't available for comment; the university's press-relations person gave me the runaround and then abruptly informed me that the professor was due to leave for vacation in just a few hours. But the paper can be read here, in its entirety, for free.

Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi , a genius?

Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi (born in 1953 Kerman) is an Iranian politician and was the former minister of science and technology in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first cabinet from 2005 to 2009. He was approved by Iran's parliament with the least number of supporting votes possible (supporters had only one vote more than opponents).

He was elected as a Member of the Parliament in 2012 elections. Zahedi received his PhD in Mathematics from Kerman University where he is currently a "full professor". However, his scientific qualification has been questioned widely by Iranian scientific community

Zahedi has 15 scientific articles in ISI with very few citations (most of them self citations). He repeatedly called himself "one of the greatest mathematicians of the time"

 With such a minor scientific achievement he was promoted to full professorship in 1999 (when he had only published 11 articles). Zahedi's profile claims he is a member of New York Academy of Sciences. An investigation by BBC Persian in July 2009 debunked this claim

His profile also claims that he was named among the most prominent Mathematicians of the century by American Mathematical Society for which there is no evidence found on American Mathematical Society website.

From Tabnak:
Before becoming minister, Zahedi had no previous administrative or managerial experience except for serving on the board of education in the small town of Babak in the province of Kerman from 1982-1983 and serving on the city council.
But when he was introduced to parliament, he argued that he was called “The Scientific Man of the Year, 1997-1998″ by “Cambridge International” and “one of the most prominent mathematicians in the world” by the American Mathematical Society from 1998-2002. In parliament when Zahedi boasted of his credentials, he was met with a lot of questioning from hardline parliament members including Emad Afrough.
Our investigation has shown that the Cambridge International has nothing to do with the famous Cambridge University. It is a website that sends you a “Man of the Year” certificate for any field for the price of $95 and will even print your name in a silver frame for an extra $360.

Brave teenager who inspired thousands on her Youtube beauty channel dies of cancer

The 13-year-old girl who took YouTube by storm with her motivational make-up videos, has tragically passed away after a six-year battle with cancer.

http://youtu.be/gxxRaNMKzmM

 

Talia Joy Castellano tragically lost her battle against cancer this week

Talia, who was known for her status as a beauty guru, shared helpful make-up and skincare tips and documented her ongoing fight against two forms of aggressive cancer, neuroblastoma and preleukemia.
After being in hospital for the last six months, this week Talia lost her battle against the disease. Her family broke the news with an official announcement on her Facebook page.
‪
Talia’s inspiring videos and “Cancer Vlogs” touched millions of fans with her uplifting stories and unwavering spirit during her continuous bouts of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, attracting over 40 million views.

“YouTube, and all the support that I get from everyone telling me that I'm inspiring and not to give up, it really makes you stop and think about how many people there are that love you... You're not there alone," Talia said.

The young star’s infectious spirit attracted the attention of numerous celebrities, including Ellen Degeneres. Last September Talia shot to worldwide fame when she appeared on the Ellen show, during which Degeneres made her an honorary Covergirl.

 

Don't use tampons

What is something that every woman has to endure in her lifetime? You got it, a menstruation cycle. On average a woman will have her period once a month, for about 5 days, for around 40 years of her life! During this time, we need to use various products stay clean and fresh. There has got to be a market in there! The Tampon and Pad industry is a $718 Million dollar market, and tampons and pads are necessities. This got me questioning the production and ethical value behind these products.

They are mass-produced, and heavily marketed and cheaply made, out of bleached rayon and plastics. Why is it that we never see ads for the much safer alternatives such as cotton products, reusable washable pads and menstruation cups? Any of these alternatives are much more economical and are about a gillion times safer for the environment. Up until a few months ago, I didn’t even know that there were alternative products, or even think that there was any potential risk from using generic menstruation products.

Almost all sanitary napkins and tampons are made with bleached rayon, cotton and plastics, how safe do you think that material is to be inside or very close to your Vagina? Not to mention these products leave behind fibers in your vagina that can cause bladder, vaginal infections, and Toxic Shock Syndrome. Tampons are also known to absorb the natural fluids and bacteria’s that the vagina produces to stay clean and healthy.

Let’s look at the #1 ingredient in generic tampons and sanitary napkins: Rayon. Rayon is a fiber that is made from cellulose fibers, cellulose is a natural fiber, but to produce Rayon chemical procedures are needed that include: carbon disulphide, sulfuric acid, chlorine and caustic soda.

Side effects from exposure to too much Rayon can include: nausea, vomiting, chest pain, headaches and many others. Rayon is not just found in tampons and pads, but a lot of clothes are made from it as well. Sanitary napkins also contain quite a bit of plastic, which does not allow sufficient air flow ‘down there’ so in turn can also cause an array of infections. Tampons and pads are also bleached using chlorine, which results in the production of dioxin, which is linked to breast cancer, endometriosis, immune system suppression and various other ailments.

So, what are our options?

A menstrual cup is my first choice for a tampon/ pad alternative. It is a flexible silicone cup that is inserted into the vagina. Essentially this cup catches all the blood and you empty it every 12 hours during your cycle and reinsert it. I know what you are thinking… gross. That’s what I thought too; my initial thought was that this sounded so disgusting that I would never use it

I guess that changed as I researched all of the positive effects that came from using a cup. If it is properly inserted and taken out there is no reason that you should ever have to actually touch blood, but even if you do, what’s the harm? Just wash your hands, you big baby.

It may take a few cycles to get the hang of how to use one of these cups, but once you do you will wish you had started a lot sooner! I recommend that you continue to use pads or liners until you have mastered the insertion technique, just in case. Not only will you save a lot of money using a menstruation cup, but you will be doing a huge favor to the environment as well.

Think about it, If an average women uses about 17,000 pads or tampons during her entire menstruation period, x that by 3.5 billion women in the world, and yeah, you do the math…. Another great thing about using menstrual cups is that many women have reported to having less severe cramping during their period! I know that alone would encourage some women to making this change. Some brands of menstrual cups are: ‘DivaCup,’ ‘MoonCup,’ ‘Ladycup’ and ‘Lunette,’ among many others.

There are also reusable pad products are made of safe materials that come with washable highly absorbent inserts to suit all different levels of flow. These would be a great option to women that do not like to products that you have to insert. These reusable ‘pads’ are made with safe breathable materials to keep your area healthy, and leak free! Some brands that are available today are: ‘Luna Pads,’ ‘Glad Rags,’ ‘Pleasure Puss’ and you can also make your own.

Now, if you are just not so keen on ever having to really see blood or wash your products, or don’t like these options there is another option, sit in a lake for your entire cycle. You will eventually come out very cold and wrinkled, but at least you won’t be throwing away tons of crap into the environment and you don’t have to worry about toxic chemicals being leached into your body…. Just kidding!

OK, there is one last alternative to generic tampons and pads. There are some companies that make natural organic cotton products that do not leach chemicals, and do not leave synthetic materials behind. These can still absorb your natural fluids and they are still not the best things for the environment, but at least cotton is a more natural substance that can biodegrade much quicker and safer. Some brands of these products are: ‘Seventh Generation,’ and ‘Natracare.’

So there you have it! I hope that this article opened up your eyes to the health effects and environmental hazards that are associated with using pads and tampons, and made you reconsider what products that you are using. There are many websites that provide information with reviews on all of these products, do your research and find what’s best suited for you and your lifestyle.

If you are worried about how much fluid menstruation cups can hold in comparison to tampons and pads check out this video.


http://lunapads.com/ - http://www.natracare.com/Default.aspx - http://divacup.com/
Much Love

Regrets of The Dying

A palliative nurse recorded the most common regrets of the dying and put her findings into a book called ‘The Top Five Regrets of The Dying.’ It’s not surprising to see what made the list as they are all things that touch each of our lives as we struggle to pay attention to and make time for things that we truly love.

Below is the list of each regret along with an excerpt from the book. At the bottom is also a link to the book for anyone interested in checking it out.

One thing on regret before we get to the list. It’s important to remember that whatever stage we are at in life, there is no need for regret. The process of regret is one that provides nothing but suffering for ourselves as we begin to allow the past to dictate how we should feel now.

Instead, we can use the past as a reference point to understand what adjustments we would like to make moving forward. The adjustments do not have to come out of pain, sorrow, regret or judgment, but simply a choice to do things in a different way. We are learning all the time, we can very quickly slow that learning process down by getting stuck in the idea of regret. When it comes to making changes, be at peace with the past and remember that each moment is a new choice.

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

“This was the most common regret of all. When people realise that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made. Health brings a freedom very few realise, until they no longer have it.”

2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.

“This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship. Women also spoke of this regret, but as most were from an older generation, many of the female patients had not been breadwinners. All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence.”

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

“Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. As a result, they settled for a mediocre existence and never became who they were truly capable of becoming. Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result.”

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

“Often they would not truly realise the full benefits of old friends until their dying weeks and it was not always possible to track them down. Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying.”

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

”This is a surprisingly common one. Many did not realise until the end that happiness is a choice. They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called ‘comfort’ of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content, when deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again.”

Don't drink milk

Vegans may have had it right all along; while raw, organic milk offers numerous health benefits, a Harvard researcher and pediatrician argues that conventional milk and dairy products alike are a detriment to your health – thanks to added health-compromising sweeteners.

The age-old saying that drinking milk is one of the keys to good health received a strong rebuttal from Harvard pediatrician David Ludwig who argues that dairy products with added sweeteners are a detriment to one’s health.

Drinking reduced-fat milk inadvertently encourages the consumption of added sugars. There have been countless pieces of research concluding the ill effects of sugar-sweetened beverages and the over-consumption of sugar has been tied to obesity, diabetes, inflammatory-related pain, and much more.

Ludwig’s recommendation: less is more, and some people might be better off drinking no milk at all. Humans, like cows, get all the calcium they need from a plant-based diet. If you are concerned about daily calcium intake, there are many alternatives to milk.

Ludwig says: “we can get plenty of calcium from a whole range of foods. On a gram for gram basis, cooked kale has more calcium than milk. Sardines, nuts seeds beans, green leafy vegetables are all sources of calcium.”


While saturated fat was discredited for decades, full-fat dairy (raw, organic, and from grass-fed cows) has been found in research to potentially promote heart health, control diabetes, aid in vitamin absorption, lower bowel cancer risk, and even aid in weight loss. But while pure dairy could promote your health, conventional dairy may prove damaging.

Before you drink your next glass of conventional milk, please educate yourself as to what you are consuming. You’d be surprised that there could be painkillers, antibiotics, and much more lurking in your milk.