A Scientific Song of Consciousness and Self

By Neuroskeptic | January 13, 2019 6:55 am

In what may be a world first, a peer-reviewed journal, Frontiers in Psychology, has published a song.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: funny, music, papers, select, Top Posts

Do You Believe in Eye-Beams?

By Neuroskeptic | December 23, 2018 6:20 am

Do you believe that people’s eyes emit an invisible beam of force?

According to a rather fun paper in PNAS, you probably do, on some level, believe that. The paper is called Implicit model of other people’s visual attention as an invisible, force-carrying beam projecting from the eyes.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: funny, papers, select, Top Posts

Predicting Suicide: The EDOR® Enigma (Part 3)

By Neuroskeptic | December 15, 2018 4:49 pm

This time last year I wrote(1,2) about a Swedish company called Emotra. Emotra make a device that is supposed to measure suicide risk in people with mental illness. The test is called EDOR® and according to Emotra’s website and materials, it has been shown to be highly effective. Last year, I explained why I disagree with that assessment.

edor_box_emotra

Now, a year later, I’m revisting the EDOR® story, because there have been a number of developments that I find quite disturbing. It seems that EDOR® has now found users and is, or soon will be, in actual commercial use in a number of hospitals.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, mental health, select, Top Posts, woo

The Psychology of Memory and the 2016 Election

By Neuroskeptic | December 9, 2018 7:43 am

An intriguing new study uses the 2016 US Presidential election as a tool to examine the organization of human memory.

The results show that events that occur around the same time are linked in memory. Remembering one past event tends to trigger the recall of other memories from that time. This chronological clustering makes intuitive sense, but it’s a theory that’s been debated in psychology for a while, under the name of the temporal-contiguity effect (TCE).

According to the authors of the new study, Mitchell G. Uitvlugt and M. Karl Healey, most previous studies of the temporal-contiguity effect have relied on memories created in the lab (e.g. by getting people to read an ordered list of items). Instead, Uitvlugt and Healey used real-world memories.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: history, papers, politics, select, Top Posts

Will We See “Monstrous” Neuroscience?

By Neuroskeptic | November 30, 2018 2:32 pm

The science story of the past week was the claim from Chinese scientist He Jiankui that he has created gene-edited human babies. Prof. He reports that two twin girls have been born carrying modifications of the gene CCR5, which is intended to protect them against future HIV risk.

It’s far from clear yet whether the gene-editing that He described has actually taken place – no data has yet been presented.  The very prospect of genetically-modifying human beings has, however, led to widespread concern, with He’s claims being described as “monstrous“, “crazy” and “unethical”.

monster_brain

All of which got me wondering: could there ever be a neuroscience experiment which attracted the same level of condemnation?

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, media, papers, select, Top Posts

Medical Ethics: “When a Dying Patient Confesses to Murder”

By Neuroskeptic | November 18, 2018 2:51 pm

What should a doctor do if a dying patient confesses to killing people decades ago? This is the question posed by a fascinating case report in the Journal of Clinical Ethics, from New Zealand-based authors Laura Tincknell and colleagues.
memory_emotion

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, law, papers, select, Top Posts

More Confusing Science of the Embassy “Sonic Attack”

By Neuroskeptic | November 3, 2018 1:26 pm

Earlier this year, I posted on how Sergio Della Salla, the editor of Cortex, criticized a headline-grabbing JAMA paper that had reported neuropsychological abnormalities in US embassy staff exposed to the mysterious Havana ‘sonic attack’. According to Della Salla, the evidence presented didn’t suggest enduring cognitive deficits in the victims.

dreams

Now, Della Salla is back (along with co-authors) for round two with a new paper, called Cognitive symptoms in US government personnel in Cuba: The mending is worse than the hole. He argues that a new clarification of the JAMA paper’s methodology makes even less sense than the original.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: papers, placebo, select, Top Posts

The Case of the Magic Wine

By Neuroskeptic | October 20, 2018 11:58 am

I just came across a strange but quite charming scientific study claiming that human thought alone can make wine taste better.

winemagic

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: papers, science, select, Top Posts, woo

RIP OAPL: An Academic Publisher Vanishes (UPDATED)

By Neuroskeptic | October 15, 2018 2:08 pm

A dubious predatory academic publisher called Open Access Publishing London (OAPL) seems to have died. Their website has gone down, taking some 1,500 scientific papers with it. What can we learn from this? (UPDATED: The site is now back online, and no longer gives a ‘domain expired’ notice. It was down for about two weeks by my count.)

rip_oapl

Long-time readers will remember my series of posts on OAPL back from when I first investigated it in 2013. As far as I can tell, it was a one-man operation. The man turned out to be a Dr. Waseem Jerjes. Jerjes is a dental surgeon with many legitimate research papers to his name, and he was formerly editor of a journal for well-known publishers BioMed Central (BMC).

OAPL published dozens of journals on their now-defunct website, from OA Anaesthetics to OA Women’s Health. These journals claimed to be peer-reviewed and some boasted well-known researchers on their editorial boards.

Eventually, the OAPL story went cold. By early 2015, the OAPL site was no longer being updated. Some researchers who’d had papers accepted by OAPL journals in the final few months were left in the lurch by this, their manuscripts lost in limbo. At that point, however, papers that had been published were still accessible.

Now, the OAPL website hosts nothing more than a ‘domain name expired’ message and a series of links to things like “Bass Fishing Trips Near Me”. All those papers – over 1,500 if I recall correctly – have just been un-published. Vanished. The journals that published these papers no longer exist.

Fortunately, many of the lost papers are still available elsewhere online, e.g. on the author’s own webpage, or on mirroring services such as SemanticScholar.org. However, some papers seem to have fallen through the cracks and, with no mirrors, they really have vanished. For example, a Google Scholar citation is all that remains of this one:

deadpaper

It would be wrong to think that none of this matters because OAPL were never a serious publisher. Although OAPL did publish some dreadful papers, most of their output seemed to be serious work from legitimate researchers. These innocent researchers are the victims here. They paid money for OAPL to publish their work, and now it’s gone.

This case also raises interesting questions about the nature of academic publication. Can the former OAPL papers still be considered “published work”, if they are nowhere to found in any publication? Will anyone really miss the lost papers – or have they already become ‘too old’ to bother reading in today’s fast-paced science world? Does anyone read papers, anyway?

As for OAPL, I’m sure they’re not the first publisher to vanish and they surely won’t be the last, but it doesn’t seem right to allow papers, trusted into your care by the authors, to just disappear. Then again, what do I know? I’m no expert on ethics – unlike, say, Waseem Jerjes, who recently edited a book about “Research Integrity and Publication Ethics.”

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, law, PIE, select, Top Posts

The Fidgeting Brain

By Neuroskeptic | October 14, 2018 7:52 am

A new review paper in The Neuroscientist highlights the problem of body movements for neuroscience, from blinks to fidgeting.

Read More

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Neuroskeptic

No brain. No gain.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+