Search

The article reports on the citations of retracted papers in fields from physics to cancer research to plant biology. These citations were found with the help of Thomson Scientific's ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. Seventeen of 19 retracted papers co-authored by German cancer researcher Friedhelm Herrmann have been cited since being retracted. Together, two of those papers were cited roughly 60 times. Examination of one Nature paper by former Bell Labs physicist Jan Hendrik published in 2000 and retracted in 2003, revealed that it has been noted in research papers 17 times. Prior to being pulled, the paper was cited 153 times. According to Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, it is quite embarrassing. Paul Friedman, a former dean at the University of California, San Diego said that if people cite fraudulent articles then either their research is going to be thrown off or something will be wasted. He oversaw an investigation into papers by radiologist Robert Slutsky in the mid-1980s.

Explains that endocrinologist John McLachlan did not commit scientific fraud in a paper published in `Science' in 1996. Conclusion announced in this issue by Tulane University Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana; Failure of Steven Arnold's data to support conclusions drawn in the 1996 paper; The paper's work on a human estrogen receptor.

The article presents information on how can academics self censor their findings on terrorism in the United States. According to the author, government-funded researchers believe that their papers require special handling in the United States. The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in March 2006 that agencies use fifty six different sensitive but unclassified categories in deciding how to control information. Some scientists state that there is a more fundamental issue at stake, namely, whether a limit on what goes into the open literature might actually weaken the nation's security. According to Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, the only appropriate mechanism for controlling information is classification. If one wants to gain the benefits of university research on problems of national security, one need to conduct it openly. Imposing restrictions short of classification is a slippery slope that will ultimately paralyze the academic process.

The article reports that the Association of American Universities (AAU) has released a white paper which calls for a committee consists of top federal science officials and university presidents who would study problems with partnership and suggestions for changes. According to AAU member Tobin Smith, there is no use for a continuing dialogue in issues across the agencies. Relative to this, Smith has cited differing rules on grants management and broader policies related to regulatory requirements and funding.

Information about the papers discussed at the conference from the American Geophysical Union in the U.S. in 2007 is presented. Topics include the climate models, water crisis, and simulations. The symposium has featured Tim P. Barnett, climatologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Martin Hoerling, modeler of the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Thomas Painter, geographer of the University of Utah,

Features rankings of United States universities in terms of clinical medicine research papers and citations from 1990 to 1994.

Ranks universities according to the number of citations in various scientific fields. Survey by the Institute for Scientific Information; Citations-per-paper average to the world average; Relative impact achieved by each university.