Advertisement

The Scientist

» science publishing and microbiology

Most Recent

image: Bedeviled by Dengue

Bedeviled by Dengue

By | March 1, 2013

The global spread of dengue virus has immunologists and public-health experts debating the best way to curb infection.

5 Comments

image: Gel Drama

Gel Drama

By | February 26, 2013

A mysterious case of proteomics plagiarism leads to an odd timeline for a retraction.

0 Comments

image: Bigfoot DNA is Bunk

Bigfoot DNA is Bunk

By | February 15, 2013

The group that last year claimed to have sequenced the Sasquatch genome has finally published its data in a brand new “journal,” and geneticists are not impressed.  

6 Comments

image: Open-Review Journal Launched

Open-Review Journal Launched

By | February 13, 2013

A new journal that publishes peer review comments alongside its manuscripts goes live.

2 Comments

image: Stem Cells: Safe Haven For TB

Stem Cells: Safe Haven For TB

By | February 5, 2013

Tuberculosis bacteria find shelter from drugs and the body’s defenses in bone marrow stem cells.

2 Comments

image: Microbial Metallurgy

Microbial Metallurgy

By | February 5, 2013

Meet the bacterium that pulls gold ions out of solution and forms tiny nuggets of the precious metal.

1 Comment

image: Stats Are Right Most of the Time

Stats Are Right Most of the Time

By | January 28, 2013

A new analysis suggests that only 14 percent of published biomedical results are wrong, despite prominent opinions to the contrary.

1 Comment

image: Cheap Impact?

Cheap Impact?

By | January 23, 2013

A new online tool allows researchers to compare open-access journal publication fees with article influence, and reveals that you don’t necessarily get what you pay for.

0 Comments

image: Mathematicians as Publishers

Mathematicians as Publishers

By | January 21, 2013

A new initiative in the mathematics research community is gearing up to do the work traditionally organized by a publisher.

0 Comments

image: Renowned Retraction

Renowned Retraction

By | January 16, 2013

Authors retract a decade-old, highly-cited cancer study, admitting sloppy mistakes in the data analysis.

1 Comment

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
ProteinSimple
ProteinSimple
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews
Life Technologies