tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post4495630024883565479..comments2024-03-07T15:19:55.343+01:00Comments on Copy, Shake, and Paste: Original and ForgeryDebora Weber-Wulffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602911135725939409noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-78987691691468962982013-05-09T20:56:46.286+02:002013-05-09T20:56:46.286+02:00The study itself is at http://www.nature.com/natur...The study itself is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html and is a very interesting (and saddening) read. Debora Weber-Wulffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036864220530629908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-19138328317182793562013-05-09T18:02:04.099+02:002013-05-09T18:02:04.099+02:00This is a bit off-topic (not about plagiarism) but...This is a bit off-topic (not about plagiarism) but maybe interesting for you as well: <br /><br />"In their Comment article ‘Raise standards for preclinical cancer research’, C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis (Nature 483, 531–533; 2012)<br />refer to scientists at Amgen who were able to reproduce findings in only 11% of 53 published papers. Several correspondents have asked<br />for details of these studies, which were not provided in the article. The Amgen scientists approached the papers’ original authors<br />to discuss findings and sometimes borrowed materials to repeat the experiments. In some cases, those authors required them to<br />sign an agreement that they would not disclose their findings about specific papers. Begley and Ellis were therefore not free to identify<br />the irreproducible papers — a fact that the Comment should have mentioned."<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e.html<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/checklist.pdf<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com