Comments on: Seven Deadly Sins for Scientists

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:42:11 +0000

Anyone tried eTBLAST the plagiarism search engine?

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:42:08 +0000

@Jon – yes I’ve mentioned the old NanoTubes de Cu elsewhere too ;-)

By: RSCJon

RSCJon — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:58:30 +0000

I think my 7th to add to the list would have to be “Embarrassing Short-sightedness”, although it’s arguable that my examples were in fact planned amid sniggers.

A Google search for a ChemComm paper on copper nanotubes, for example, will show you what I mean. Not to mention the Proton Enhanced Nuclear Induction Spectroscope. Those crazy scientists and their hilarious acronyms/initialisations.

- Jon

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:26:15 +0000

That’s not self-plagiarism, that’s more like what’s illustrated in the picture for this post – self-flagellation!

By: beautyscientist

beautyscientist — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:36:11 +0000

Someone in my field published a paper, and then a couple of years later published a paper criticising his own work! Two bites at the cherry and giving the impression of being self crtical at the same time.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:29:36 +0000

Michelle, yes, indeed publications are the coinage of the scientific realm. Taking that metaphor to its obvious conclusion duplication and salami publishing can lead only to runaway inflation. The issue of duplication was covered widely earlier in the year, after Errani and Garner published on the topic in Nature (just the once, mind you!) db

By: Michelle Francl

Michelle Francl — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:55:04 +0000

Papers are the coin of the realm for many, if you wrote a grant to fund some piece of this huge project, you need a publication to provide proof you were a contributing member. Perhaps this multiplication of authors and “salami publishing” are just the scientific incarnations of gluttony. I sometime feel as if I’m choking on the literature, particularly the “methyl, ethyl, propyl…” genre.

If we’re bridging math and theology – there is a fascinating riff in St. Augustine on the significance of 153, where he uses a series to arrive at that value. I keep meaning to dig in to find out how far back the description of summations of series goes in the literature. And by no means am I suggesting a list of 153 deadly scientific sins!

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:29:47 +0000

Randall, I think with those kinds of particles physics papers that are carried out at multiple huge research facilities, such as the Argonne National Laboratory, there really are hundreds of people involved in making any single discovery, but it does beggar belief that they all could have made as significant a contribution to the paper itself.

By: Randall Klopping

Randall Klopping — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:18:19 +0000

Its hard to judge its validity as I can’t afford to buy papers… However, I didn’t recognize a single name in the list, so first impression to me is that they are operating under a misconception that a whole bunch of names would add to its credibility and it is a collaborative attempt to write themselves into history.

i watch it happen frequently in the Science Fiction world, authors doing big PR campaigns, forming alliances and declaring themselves to be the next Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clark, Robert Heinlein, etc and then their books end up to be unimaginative or poorly written.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:42:34 +0000

Randall, I think you’re probably right. It was published in an April, perhaps on the 1st even, but I don’t think it’s a joke…