By Neuroskeptic | December 31, 2013
Lately, there have been increasing numbers of online, unofficial what might be called vigilante investigations into published scientific work.
vigilance
The blog Retraction Watch and its comment section are a good example of this. Commenters, often anonymous, will get onto the trail of a certain researcher (generally following a retraction) and scrutinize their publications (e.g. here) looking for plagiarism, image manipulation, statistically improbable data, or other evidence of bad practice.
At last, people are beginning to question scientific findings to determine whether or not they're politically motivated or actually good science. This article has lots of links and is well-worth reading @ Science Needs Vigilantes - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com
Lately, there have been increasing numbers of online, unofficial what might be called vigilante investigations into published scientific work.
vigilance
The blog Retraction Watch and its comment section are a good example of this. Commenters, often anonymous, will get onto the trail of a certain researcher (generally following a retraction) and scrutinize their publications (e.g. here) looking for plagiarism, image manipulation, statistically improbable data, or other evidence of bad practice.
At last, people are beginning to question scientific findings to determine whether or not they're politically motivated or actually good science. This article has lots of links and is well-worth reading @ Science Needs Vigilantes - Neuroskeptic | DiscoverMagazine.com