March 28, 2024, 02:37:09 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: This year's Top Ten List  (Read 8970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arkcon

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7367
  • Mole Snacks: +533/-147
This year's Top Ten List
« on: December 28, 2011, 04:50:30 PM »
Well, 'tis the season for top ten lists, but this is one I hadn't heard of before ... Top Redacted Journal Articles of 2010.  http://www.livescience.com/17635-science-journal-retractions-2011.html And #4 isn't even really redacted yet.
Hey, I'm not judging.  I just like to shoot straight.  I'm a man of science.

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5298
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re: This year's Top Ten List
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2011, 10:55:57 PM »
Thanks for the link, pretty cool list.
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Online Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27636
  • Mole Snacks: +1799/-410
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re: This year's Top Ten List
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2012, 06:56:29 AM »
They didn't even count to 10, just to 5 ;)
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info

Offline Arkcon

  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7367
  • Mole Snacks: +533/-147
Re: This year's Top Ten List
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2012, 07:49:21 AM »
I know, I was so flustered by the content, I rushed to post it here for our discussion.  I found it first on MSN, so I had to dig through the LiveScience webpage to find the original article for posting here.  This was already on FARK, but people there are pretty mellow -- that's just the way science works, they say.

That one story #4 -- I don't quite get it.  It has been retracted from one journal, but not from PNAS.  It is simply unavailable online, say s the Live Science article.  What, I wonder, does it actually say?  Did it actually say that butterflies evolved from a cross species fertilization of flies and worms to explain why modern butterflies have a worm-like larval stage?  Because that's just wrong on so many levels, that could only be published on April 1st.

Often, to bash science, news reporters will dumb down the text so far, they corrupt the message, so it only looks stupid.  I really don't know if that's the case here.
Hey, I'm not judging.  I just like to shoot straight.  I'm a man of science.

Offline billnotgatez

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4400
  • Mole Snacks: +223/-62
  • Gender: Male
Re: This year's Top Ten List
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2012, 07:58:35 AM »
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Is this peer reviewed or editor reviewed

Offline edwards.kevin41

  • New Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Re: This year's Top Ten List
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2012, 07:37:26 AM »
Hey!!! Thanks for the list. That was really cool.

Sponsored Links