Friday, June 10, 2016

Busy morning, but...

Just for fun, you should check out this paper, and its Supporting Information. It seems... not quite right.

(ht @stuartcantrill, @notHF, etc. on Twitter. Looks like it was the Beeler Group at Boston University that originally tweeted it.) 

7 comments:

  1. Apparently not a single chemist reviewed that paper (nor anyone who understands even a bit of organic chemistry).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nature scrambling to fix it. Scientific Reports section is down.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Derek Lowe's take: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/06/10/crap-courtesy-of-a-major-scientific-publisher

    ReplyDelete
  4. But Neils Degrasse Tyson said that the best thing about science is that it's always right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, a simple search for (2, 4-Dihydroxy-cyclohexyl)-[4-(3, 5-dihydroxy-cyclohexyl)-piperazin-1-yl]-methanone in a Google image search brought me to https://peerj.com/articles/1588.pdf, where they published the same terrible structure in the Supporting Info of the Scientific Reports paper. Then I saw all the overlapping images.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this is obviously a ploy to distract and draw attention away from the big names who only copy a few images, and then stretch them and edit them a lot, or increase yields/ee by only 10% in a catalysis paper, or make up only one or two elemental analyses in the paper. While we're all busy with this, the pressure of scrutiny is released from them. Ask yourself who benefits and follow the money. Open your eyes!!!11!

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's worth noting that the University of Malaya has responded vigorously and decisively by retracting the offending article and starting disciplinary action for fraud against the authors. If only US universities could do the same!

    ReplyDelete