Monday, December 9, 2024

What Would Change with a “New Physics” Breakthrough?

“New physics” is a catch-all term...

Neem seed extract improves effectiveness of pesticide

Pesticides can be made more effective...

Friday links: #pruittdata post-credits scene, and more

EcologyFriday links: #pruittdata post-credits scene, and more


Also this week: Son of the Return of the Ecology Blogosphere (Part II), and more.

From Jeremy:

The EEB and Flow is back! The return of the ecology blogosphere continues apace.

Voyager I, back from the (near) dead.

Another retraction for Jonathan Pruitt, this one from PNAS. Pruitt’s co-authors requested the retraction in Feb. 2020, a month after the #pruittdata scandal broke. PNAS slapped an Expression of Concern on the paper in May 2020, which I suppose might help explain why they only just got around to retracting it. For most practical purposes, a Jonathan Pruitt paper with an EoC already is retracted. To be clear, I think PNAS could and should have retracted years ago. But given that they did slap an EoC on the paper pretty promptly, I’m not all that bothered that the retraction took so long.

I refuse to link to the story about the ex-lab tech turned Tik Tok science influencer with the on-the-nose screen name who faked a bunch of data. Just no. I wish I could unlearn this story’s existence.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged pruittdata by Jeremy Fox. Bookmark the permalink.

About Jeremy Fox

I’m an ecologist at the University of Calgary. I study population and community dynamics, using mathematical models and experiments.


Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles