The pain of rejection is one that every scientist has felt: but what happens to papers after they’re declined by a journal?
In a new study, researchers Earnshaw et al. traced the fate of almost 1,000 manuscripts which had been submitted to and rejected by ear, nose and throat journal Clinical Otolaryngology between 2011 to 2013.
Earlier this year, neuroscience was shaken by the publication in PNAS of Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. In this paper, Anders Eklund, Thomas E. Nichols and Hans Knutsson reported that commonly used software for analysing fMRI data produces many false-positives.
But now, Boston College neuroscientist Scott D. Slotnick has criticized Eklund et al.’s alarming conclusions in a new piece in Cognitive Neuroscience.
Most people believe that scientists have high levels of objectivity and integrity – and scientists themselves share these positive views of their own profession. But according to scientists, not all researchers are equally upstanding, with male and early-career scientists being seen as somewhat less trustworthy than others.
A new post at Quartz discusses
The disturbingly accurate brain science that identifies potential criminals while they’re still toddlers… scientists are able to use brain tests on three-year-olds to determine which children are more likely to grow up to become criminals.
Retraction Watch reports on an initiative by the microbiology journal mSphere. Under the new system, the editors no longer take responsibility for inviting peer reviewers to evaluate each manuscript. Instead, the would-be authors are expected to find two reviewers themselves, and to submit the reviews along with their paper.
mSphere call this approach ‘author-initiated peer review‘, but I like to think of it as the “Pick-Your-Own” system.
When you’re doing two things at once – like listening to the radio while driving – your brain organizes itself into two, functionally independent networks, almost as if you temporarily have two brains. That’s according to a fascinating new study from University of Wisconsin-Madison neuroscientists Shuntaro Sasai and colleagues. It’s called Functional split brain in a driving/listening paradigm
Does non-ionizing radiation pose a health risk? Everyone knows that ionizing radiation, like gamma rays, can cause cancer by damaging DNA. But the scientific consensus is that there is no such risk from non-ionizing radiation such as radiowaves or Wi-Fi.
Yet according to a remarkable new paper from Magda Havas, the risk is real: it’s called When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?
Most neuroscientists will tell you that long-term memories are stored in the brain in the form of synapses, the connections between neurons. On this view, memory formation occurs when synaptic connections are strengthened, or entirely new synapses are formed.
However, in a new piece in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, Austrian researcher Patrick C. Trettenbrein critiques the synapse-memory theory: The Demise of the Synapse As the Locus of Memory.
Earlier this week, Frontiers in Public Health published the abstract of a paper called ‘Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports’. Based on an online survey of 415 mothers involved in the homeschool movement, Mississippi-based researchers Mawson et al. reported that vaccination is associated with a much higher rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.