Podcast appearances and mentions of ivan oransky

How is Trump's executive order redefining the language permissible in scientific research, and what does it mean for academic freedom? Today, we examine the complexities surrounding scientific research under shifting political landscapes with Ivan Oransky, a seasoned medical journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch. Oransky discusses the implications of President Trump's executive orders and how it has sent ripples throughout the scientific community, causing researchers to reconsider their work amidst existential uncertainties. Oransky explores the nuanced relationship between government funding and scientific inquiry. This episode unpacks the historical precedents of government involvement in research, tracing back to the 1940s, and examines the mounting challenges faced by scientists under the recent policy changes. Oransky provides a critical analysis of how such directives potentially stifle open inquiry and drive talented researchers away, ultimately impacting the future landscape of scientific discovery. In This Episode:Implications of Trump's executive orders on scientific researchHistorical context of government funding in scientific researchThe impact of political climates on scientific inquiry and transparencyChallenges of anticipatory obedience within research communitiesIvan Oransky's insights on sustaining open and rigorous scientific dialogue About Ivan:Ivan Oransky, MD, is the co-founder of Retraction Watch, the Editor in Chief of The Transmitter, and a Distinguished Journalist in Residence at New York University's Carter Journalism Institute, where he teaches medical journalism. He has held leadership positions at Medscape, MedPage Today, Reuters Health, Scientific American, and The Scientist. A former president of the Association of Health Care Journalists from 2017 to 2021, Oransky earned his bachelor's degree from Harvard and an MD from NYU School of Medicine. His contributions to biomedical communication have earned him accolades, including the John P. McGovern Award and commendation from the John Maddox Prize judges for his work at Retraction Watch. Read HXA's newsletter Free the Inquiry: https://heterodoxacademy.substack.com/Follow Ivan on X: https://x.com/ivanoransky  Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

Audio from the 2024 Charleston Conference Leadership Interview Series. Heather Staines, Senior Strategy Consultant, Delta Think interviews Ivan Oransky, Co-Founder, Retraction Watch. Heather and Ivan discuss the founding of Retraction Watch, a nonprofit that publishes daily reports on scientific fraud and misconduct, acting as a watchdog for scientific integrity, and also maintains a retractions database that was recently acquired by Crossref, which makes the data open and provides sustainability. Ivan is the Editor in Chief of The Transmitter, a publication at the Simons Foundation that covers neuroscience for neuroscientists. He is special advisor for policy and strategy in Scientific Publishing and for funding the archive initiatives at the Simons Foundation. For over 20 years, Ivan has taught medical journalism at New York University.  He believes librarians play a critical role in supporting research and publishing and have been instrumental in supporting Retractions Watch's mission. Video of the Interview is available at: https://youtu.be/Lx9iv2f7Plk Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherstaines/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanoransky/ Twitter: Keywords:    #RetractionWatch, #SimonsFoundation, #MedicalJournalism, #Research, #ResearchSupport, #LibrariansInResearch, #ScientificFraud, #Retraction, #RetractionDatabase, #ProfessionalDevelopment, #LibrarianJourney, #LibraryEducation, #InformationAccess, #LibraryCommunity, #libraries, #librarians, #librarycareer, #libraryschool, #librarylove, #LibraryScience, #academic, #AcademicPublishing, #scholcomm, #ScholarlyCommunication, #research, #learning, #learnon, #information, #leaders, #leadership, #2024ChsConf, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers #libraryissues, #libraryneeds,#librarychallenges, #libraryconference #podcast  #LeadershipInterview

Editors at scientific journals are quitting in droves. According to Retraction Watch, a watchdog publication, there have been at least 20 mass resignations since 2023.So, what's going on? If you look closely, you'll notice a common pattern—publishers are cutting back on the number of editors, increasing the number of papers, and charging hefty fees for authors to publish their work.The most recent mass resignation happened at the Journal of Human Evolution at the end of 2024. Both co-editors in chief and the entire editorial board quit, except for one person.What does this mean for the future of scientific publishing? Have these resignations made the big publishers change their ways? Is the strict academic publishing system we know in danger?To answer those questions and more, Ira talks with Dr. Andrea Taylor, former co-editor in chief of the Journal of Human Evolution; and Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch and editor in chief of The Transmitter.Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Probably not — the incentives are too strong. But a few reformers are trying. We check in on their progress, in an update to an episode originally published last year. (Part 2 of 2) SOURCES:Max Bazerman, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.Leif Nelson, professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business.Brian Nosek, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director at the Center for Open Science.Ivan Oransky, distinguished journalist-in-residence at New York University, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, and co-founder of Retraction Watch.Joseph Simmons, professor of applied statistics and operations, information, and decisions at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.Uri Simonsohn, professor of behavioral science at Esade Business School.Simine Vazire, professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne and editor-in-chief of Psychological Science. RESOURCES:"How a Scientific Dispute Spiralled Into a Defamation Lawsuit," by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2024)."The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers," by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023)."They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023)."Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science," by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023)."Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles," (Retraction Watch, 2023)."Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers," (Retraction Watch, 2019)."How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009).Lifecycle Journal. EXTRAS:"Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia? (Update)" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Freakonomics Goes to College, Part 1," by Freakonomics Radio (2012).

This month Ivan Oransky joins us to talk about his work as a journalist and advocate for monitoring scientific misconduct.Ivan confesses about his beginnings as a young playwright of the immune systemHe discusses how and why he left medicine to become a journalistIvan's mentors encouraged him to develop by getting experience as a journalist and editorIvan reflects on how his training as a physician was helpful and allowed people to trust himHe stresses how important it is to read in order to develop story-writing skillsIvan explains that curiosity and attention can help to hunt for good storiesHe thinks the trend to ‘weaponization' is central to what's wrong in science and science communication todayHe suggests that going ‘upstream' might help to explain the methodology and not just the results of scienceIvan describes the origins of Retraction Watch and looking for the stories behind the retractionsHe also insists that we need to look upstream to understand what leads to the fraud (or sloppiness) behind the retractionsFinally, learning to say NO is an important skill to keeping focusedIvan mentioned these scientists, writers and institutionsHarvard University : https://www.harvard.edu/The Harvard Crimson https://www.thecrimson.com/Yale University https://www.yale.edu/The Scientist https://www.the-scientist.com/Journal of American Medical Association https://jamanetwork.com/New York University's Carter Journalism Institute https://journalism.nyu.edu/The New York Times https://www.nytimes.comLawrence Altman MD https://www.nytimes.com/by/lawrence-k-altmanGeorge Lundberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_D._Lundberg https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114712/To find out more about Ivan and his work visit these links  at NYU https://journalism.nyu.edu/about-us/profile/ivan-oransky-md/on Twitter/X https://x.com/ivanoranskyRetraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/The Transmitter /Spectrum magazine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_TransmitterIvan's first play about the Immune System (aged 11) https://theoranskyjournal.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/immune-system-play.pdfYou want to support our work ? Buy us a coffee ! ==> https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lonelypipetteTo find out more about Renaud and Jonathan : Twitter : https://twitter.com/LePourpre LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/renaudpourpre/ Twitter : https://twitter.com/Epigenetique LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanweitzman/%20 More about the soundtrack :Music by Amaria - Lovely Swindler https://soundcloud.com/amariamusique/

A record 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023. In this episode from February 2024, Ian Sample speaks to Ivan Oransky, whose organisation Retraction Watch has been monitoring the growing numbers of retractions for more than a decade, and hears from blogger Sholto David, who made headlines this year when he spotted mistakes in research from a leading US cancer institute. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

What's the point of evidence? It's to gain knowledge, so that we can treat our patients better. But what happens when the data is wrong, faked, misleading, or simply made up? Retraction Watch (www.retractionwatch.com, and @retractionwatch) collates retractions from journals around the world. Their database makes terrifying reading: tens of […]

Show Notes: In this conversation with Will Bachman, Ivan Oransky, a co-founder of Retraction Watch, shares his experience as a medical journalist and with Retraction Watch. Ivan explains that his friend and co-founder, Adam Marcus had uncovered a massive story about scientific fraud in Western Massachusetts, where an anesthesiologist had made up all clinical data. Adam, who was managing editor of an publication called Anesthesiology News got the scoop on the story, and Ivan, who was impressed with the story, suggested they start a blog about retraction notices, it turned out there were far more happening than previously thought.  13 and a half years later, Retraction Watch is still going strong and has a large audience. Adam and Ivan are volunteers but have four staff two of whom run a database of retractions that was recently acquired by CrossRef, a nonprofit that tracks scientific data and papers. The other two staff continue to contribute to the journalism work they started 13 and a half years ago, while Ivan and Adam still supervisor edit and direct it. How to Evaluate an Article Ivan shares his advice on how to evaluate an article in a medical journal or any published article. He emphasizes the importance of showing one's work and examining the evidence used to reach a conclusion. He explains that, when looking at articles, it is crucial to consider the original sources, citations, and the journal's track record of quality. He also emphasizes the importance of humility in making claims and not making pronouncements about things he or she doesn't know anything about. He also warns against trusting credentials to suggest expertise, as it can be misleading, Ivan shares the example of a time when he was asked to peer review papers about COVID-19, simply because he had co-authored a letter about retractions of work. However, he is not an expert on the subject. Ivan believes that an expert should only be asked to peer review papers that they believe are likely to hold up or should not be published.  Leading Causes of Retraction Ivan explains that factors that commonly lead to a retraction. Two-thirds of retractions are for misconduct. This number is consistent across various works and he goes on to explain that there are several definitions of misconduct to take into consideration, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. About 20 percent of the time, it's due to a what's known as honest error, and Ivan offers a few examples.  The deeper cause is the requirement that researchers must publish in certain places to get a job in academia, tenure, promotion, and prizes. This drives people to do all sorts of things, and while this drives most people to work harder and try to work more efficiently, others may take a different approach. In fact, Ivan states that 2 percent of researchers admit to committing misconduct.  The Replication Crisis Ivan talks about the replication crisis, which has been a topic of interest in the social sciences and hard sciences. When Retraction Watch was first launched, there were about 400 retractions from journals a year. Last year, there were more than 10,000, a big increase despite the rising number of papers published. The root cause of this issue is the same problem: replications are not new research or findings and should be cherished and prized, but they are not. Big journals don't like to publish replications, so they don't reward new research. To get into a big journal, researchers need to publish new research, which is simple behavioral incentive economics. The discussion turns to incentives for people to write about scientific misconduct and fraud. Ivan states that, while there is more incentive not to write retractions, he cites a page on Retraction Watch that has dozens of stories from people committed to revealing issues with research, including well-known figures. These individuals face legal risks, such as lawsuits, and are usually not paid for this work.  The conversation also touches on the potential negative repercussions of challenging senior professionals in their field, such as professors or presidents of universities. However, most of these individuals do not work in science anymore, or their career trajectory is not dependent on pleasing or failing to displease senior members of academia. These individuals often publish on sites like PubPeer, which allows users to leave comments on published studies. This helps expose the issues and claims in the media, helping to raise awareness and support for those who need help. Retraction Watch offers resources and social media platforms for those interested in learning more about the topic. They welcome feedback and story tips, and they are open to sharing more information about their work. Timestamps: 01:03 Scientific fraud and retractions  04:41 Evaluating credibility in scientific articles and peer review 09:10 Research retractions and the root causes 13:05 Replication crisis in science and the challenges faced by those uncovering fraud 17:18 Academic misconduct and whistleblowers Links: Website: https://retractionwatch.com/ Unleashed is produced by Umbrex, which has a mission of connecting independent management consultants with one another, creating opportunities for members to meet, build relationships, and share lessons learned. Learn more at www.umbrex.com.

A record 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023. To find out what's driving this trend, Ian Sample speaks to Ivan Oransky, whose organisation Retraction Watch has been monitoring the growing numbers of retractions for more than a decade, and hears from blogger Sholto David, who recently made headlines when he spotted mistakes in research from a leading US cancer institute.. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

Probably not — the incentives are too strong. Scholarly publishing is a $28 billion global industry, with misconduct at every level. But a few reformers are gaining ground.   (Part 2 of 2) SOURCES:Max Bazerman, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.Leif Nelson, professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business.Brian Nosek, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director at the Center for Open Science.Ivan Oransky, distinguished journalist-in-residence at New York University, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, and co-founder of Retraction Watch.Joseph Simmons, professor of applied statistics and operations, information, and decisions at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.Uri Simonsohn, professor of behavioral science at Esade Business School.Simine Vazire, professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne and editor-in-chief of Psychological Science. RESOURCES:"The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers," by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023)."They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023)."Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science," by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023)."Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles," (Retraction Watch, 2023)."Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers," (Retraction Watch, 2019)."How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009). EXTRAS:"Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Freakonomics Goes to College, Part 1," by Freakonomics Radio (2012).

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/ivan_oransky_are_we_over_medicalized ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/104-academic-words-reference-from-ivan-oransky-are-we-over-medicalized-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/6M7ro1vqRZQ (All Words) https://youtu.be/5hqiWx6hQBU (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/OowZN6SmvPw (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

We have a new podcast! It's called Universe Of Art, and it features conversations with artists who use science to bring their creations to the next level. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.    A See-Through Squid Success Story Adult octopuses have about 500 million neurons, which is about as many neurons as a dog. Typically, more neurons means a more intelligent and complex creature. But it's a bit more complicated than that. Unlike dogs, or even humans, octopuses' neurons aren't concentrated in their brains—they're spread out through their bodies and into their arms and suckers, more like a “distributed” mind. (Scientists still haven't quite figured out exactly why this is.) And that's just the tip of the iceberg, in terms of unanswered cephalopod questions. Now, researchers have successfully bred a line of albino squid that were first engineered using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, creating a see-through squid. Their unique transparency allows scientists to more easily study their neural structure, and a whole lot more. SciFri experiences manager Diana Plasker talks with Joshua Rosenthal, senior scientist at the University of Chicago's Marine Biological Laboratory, based in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, about this see-through squid success story. When Eye-Grabbing Results Just Don't Pan Out You know the feeling — you see a headline in the paper or get an alert on your phone about a big scientific breakthrough that has the potential to really change things. But then, not much happens, or that news turns out to be much less significant than the headlines made it seem. Journalists are partially to blame for this phenomenon. But another guilty culprit is also the scientific journals, and the researchers who try to make their own work seem more significant than the data really supports in order to get published. Armin Alaedini, an assistant professor of medical sciences at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, recently co-authored a commentary on this topic published in The American Journal of Medicine. He joins Ira and Ivan Oransky — co-founder of Retraction Watch and a medical journalism professor and Distinguished Writer In Residence at New York University — to talk about the tangled world of scientific publishing and the factors that drive inflated claims in publications.     How Art Can Help Treat Dementia And Trauma We might intrinsically know that engaging with and making art is good for us in some way. But now, scientists have much more evidence to support this, thanks in part to a relatively new field called neuroaesthetics, which studies the effects that artistic experiences have on the brain. A new book called Your Brain On Art: How The Arts Transform Us, dives into that research, and it turns out the benefits of the arts go far beyond elevating everyday life; they're now being used as part of healthcare treatments to address conditions like dementia and trauma. Universe of Art host D. Peterschmidt sits down with the authors of the book, Susan Magsamen, executive director of the International Arts + Mind Lab at the Pederson Brain Science Institute at Johns Hopkins University, and Ivy Ross, vice president of design for hardware products at Google, to talk about what we can learn from neuroaesthetic studies, the benefits of a daily arts practice, and the kinds of art they both like making.   Testing Mars Rovers In Utah's Red Desert Take a 20-minute drive down Cow Dung Road, outside of Hanksville, Utah, and you'll stumble across the Mars Desert Research Station. This cluster of white buildings—webbed together by a series of covered walkways—looks a little alien, as does the red, desolate landscape that surrounds it. “The ground has this crust that you puncture through, and it makes you feel like your footprints are going to be there for a thousand years,” said Sam Craven, a senior leading the Brigham Young University team here for the University Rover Challenge. “Very bleak and dry, but very beautiful also.” This remote chunk of Utah is a Mars analogue, one of roughly a dozen locations on Earth researchers use to test equipment, train astronauts and search for clues to inform the search for life on other planets. While deployed at the station, visiting scientists live in total isolation and don mock space suits before they venture outside. To read the rest, visit sciencefriday.com.   To stay updated on all-things-science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters. Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.  

Today we are talking about the academic scientific peer review process, which ordinarily involves a journal sending a submitted paper out to other experts for assessment before they decide to publish the article, something which has become part of the normal process for and sign of a quality academic scientific journal.This subject is increasingly important as more and more high-profile and impactful research articles are being retracted or placed under editorial “notices of concern” both in Australia and overseas. To learn more, Cosmos journalist Clare Kenyon talks to Dr Ivan Oransky, an acclaimed journalist and one of the creators of Retraction Watch, a site and database which collates, lists and discusses retractions and editorial notes of concern placed on peer-review journal article publications, and also Dr Elisabeth Bik, a Dutch-US microbiologist and image consultant especially renowned for her ability to detect image duplication and manipulation.”Find the science of everything at the Cosmos Magazine website Subscribe to Cosmos Magazine (print) or the Cosmos WeeklyWatch and listen to all our Cosmos BriefingsSpecial 10% discount on Cosmos magazine print subscriptions (1 or 2 year), or 1 year Cosmos Weekly subscriptions for Cosmos Briefing podcast listeners!  Use coupon code COSMOSPOD in our shop. 

In this episode, Dr. Dawn is in conversation with Dr. Elisabeth Bik and Dr. Ivan Oransky. Dr. Elisabeth Bik is a microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant who has worked to call out fraudulent scientific papers. She became renowned in her fight against the bad science behind hydroxychloroquine as an effective therapy against COVID-19 that resulted in a global Twitter assault. Dr. Ivan Oransky is an accomplished journalist, editor, and educator who founded Retraction Watch, the world's only aggregated database of scientific retraction. In this episode, our guests take a moral stance on science - and tell us… What Does It Profit? This episode has been produced as part of Whistling at the Fake, a global business ethics research project funded by NATO's Public Diplomacy Division as part of its resilience projects. The project aims at addressing the gap of citizen comprehension of the forms, means, and impacts of misinformation and disinformation, and empowering the general public with the tools through which to identify fake news, including appropriate responses to such behaviors. The project focuses on the crucial role whistleblowers and other knowledgeable insiders play in exposing misleading and hostile information activities and increasing public resilience to acts of this nature.

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/neuroscience

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Retractions are on the rise in medical research, and we get to the bottom of it with Ivan Oransky, cofounder of RetractionWatch.com. Published On: 12/21/2020 Duration: 25 minutes, 12 seconds Got feedback? Take the podcast survey.  

Chris and Jonathan interview Dr. Ivan Oransky, the co-founder of Retraction Watch which tracks retractions of scientific papers. They discuss how papers get published, how they get retracted, and what a better system might look like.   1:29 How scientific papers get published 3:44 Journals are businesses with a bizarre business model 13:52 No more COVID-related retractions than expected 17:10 Science by press release in part to prevent insider trading 20:04 Jade amulets against COVID-19 26:33 Zombie papers 30:43 A dramatic increase in retractions but they are still rare 36:50 Why are mistakes caught after publication? 42:20 Going to science heaven     * Theme music: “Fall of the Ocean Queen“ by Joseph Hackl.   To contribute to The Body of Evidence, go to our Patreon page at: http://www.patreon.com/thebodyofevidence/.   Patrons get a bonus show on Patreon called “Digressions”! Check it out!     Links: 1) The Retraction Watch website: https://retractionwatch.com/ 2) Retraction Watch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RetractionWatch 3) Ivan Oransky on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ivanoransky 4) The Retraction Watch newsletter: https://us12.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=4f35c1f2e9acc58eee0811e78&id=a15d7de264 5) Jonathan's article on the jade amulet: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/paper-argues-amulet-may-protect-covid-should-it-have-been-published 6) Retraction Watch's original article on the jade amulet: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/29/amulets-may-prevent-covid-19-says-a-paper-in-elsevier-journal-they-dont/ 7) The jade amulet paper's retraction notice: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/11/16/co-authors-of-paper-on-covid-19-and-jade-amulets-blames-the-online-press-and-social-media-for-misinterpretation-in-retraction-letter/ 8) The Surgisphere retractions: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-controversial-hydroxychloroquine-study/

Ivan Oransky joins us to discuss his work documenting the scientific peer-review process at retractionwatch.com.  

Ivan Oransky has been tracking questionable studies on COVID-19 for the blog "Retraction Watch", which he co-founded (https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/). He shares his tips on telling the good research on the coronavirus from the not-so-good.

It's All Journalism host Michael O'Connell is joined this week by Ivan Oransky of the Association of Health Care Journalists to discuss resources and tools available to reporters who find themselves covering the coronavirus pandemic without any specialized training in medical or health reporting. Keep up with the latest news about the It's All Journalism podcast, sign up for our weekly email newsletter.

The “silent transmission” of covid-19 means people without symptoms could be a major source of its spread. How effective are masks as a defence? Plus, Kenneth Cukier asks Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retractionwatch.com, whether the race to uncover the mysteries of the virus could lead to a torrent of “bad science”.For more on the pandemic, see The Economist's coronavirus hub. And please subscribe to The Economist for full access to print, digital and audio editions:www.economist.com/radiooffer See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The “silent transmission” of covid-19 means people without symptoms could be a major source of its spread. How effective are masks as a defence? Plus, Kenneth Cukier asks Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retractionwatch.com, whether the race to uncover the mysteries of the virus could lead to a torrent of “bad science”.For more on the pandemic, see The Economist's coronavirus hub. And please subscribe to The Economist for full access to print, digital and audio editions:www.economist.com/radiooffer See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Elected officials offer a flood of facts and spin in daily coronavirus briefings. On this week’s On the Media, hear how the press could do a better job separating vital information from messaging. Plus, a look at the unintended consequences of armchair epidemiology. And, how one watchdog journalist has won paid sick leave for thousands of workers during the pandemic.  1. Bob [@bobosphere] on the challenges of covering the pandemic amidst a swirl of political messaging. Listen.  2. Ivan Oransky [@ivanoransky], professor of medical journalism at New York University, on the rapidly-changing ways that medical scientists are communicating with each other. Listen.  3. Ryan Broderick [@broderick], senior reporter at Buzzfeed News, on "coronavirus influencers." Listen.  4. Judd Legum [@JuddLegum], author of the Popular Information newsletter, on pressing large corporations to offer paid sick leave. Listen.  5. Brooke [@OTMBrooke] on the cost-benefit analysis being performed with human lives. Listen.   

Scott Ratzan of CUNY on coronavirus communications. Ivan Oransky of RetractionWatch.com on study retraction. Megan Ranney of Brown Univ on firearm research. Wendy Silverman of Yale Univ on anxiety. Jackie Heinricher, Racecar Driver, on the first female race team. Scott Doney of Univ of Virginia on ocean acidification.

  https://accadandkoka.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/cropped-Heathers_James_linderpix-NEU-52067-high-res-e1550797596964.jpg ()James Heathers, PhD Will it take data vigilantes to restore some order in the House of Science?  With the replication crisis showing no sign of letting up, some committed scientists have taken it upon themselves to find ways to sniff out cases of egregious fraud.  As it turns out, identifying scientific misbehavior is surprisingly easy! Our guest is a full-time research scientist, author/consultant at Northeastern University in Boston in a Computational Behavioral Science lab.  James Heathers completed his undergraduate work in Psychology and Industrial relations from the University of Sydney and obtained his doctorate degree on the topic of methodological improvements in heart rate variability at the same institution in 2015. He and a couple of his colleagues have captured the limelight after exposing problems in the work of a world-famous nutrition researcher, which led to the retraction of 5 papers.  These “data thugs” have since designed a couple of tools that can identify suspicious data through a simple analysis of descriptive statistics. GUEST: James Heathers, PhD: https://twitter.com/jamesheathers (Twitter), https://everythinghertz.com/ (podcast), and http://jamesheathers.com/ (website) LINKS: Brian Wansink. https://web.archive.org/web/20170312041524/http:/www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no (The Grad Student Who Never Said “No”) (from the WayBack Machine internet archives) James Heathers. https://hackernoon.com/introducing-sprite-and-the-case-of-the-carthorse-child-58683c2bfeb (Introducing SPRITE and the Case of the Carthorse Child) Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/meet-data-thugs-out-expose-shoddy-and-questionable-research (Meet the Data-Thugs Out to Expose Shoddy and Questionable Research) (Blog post in Science, Feb 2018) Tom Bartlett. https://www.chronicle.com/article/I-Want-to-Burn-Things-to/244488?key=ONA-J8qTe05O7njbTd0tJxVPc8Wh8rPZLgfV3j9qtQvPw_NSaQoPLX5LOtOxfok8TDJSbDZYakViRTN1RW9qdjFKT1BZUUJTc3dBUjM0N1AyRlFJV2dnVzEyQQ%5C (“I want to Burn Things to the Ground”: Are the foot soldiers behind psychology’s replication crisis saving science — or destroying it?) (Article in The Chronicles of Higher Education, September 2018) RELATED EPISODES: https://accadandkoka.com/episode48/ (Ep. 48 Many Statisticians, Many Answers: The Methodological Factor in the Replication Crisis) (with Brian Nosek) https://accadandkoka.com/episode57/ (Ep. 57 Neither Fisher Nor Bayes: The Limits of Statistical Inference) (with Michael Acree) WATCH ON YOUTUBE: Watch the episode on our YouTube channel Support this podcast

You've heard of fake news, but what about fake science? The shocking, shady world of the modern scientific marketplace. A special for ABC RN's China In Focus series featuring Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch and guests.

Science is self-correcting in nature, but the mechanism for correcting the literature could be more transparent. In 2010, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus recognized this transparency issue and launched the blog Retraction Watch to shed light on what happened with these retracted research articles. In this episode of PLOScast, Ivan and Elizabeth Seiver talk about Retraction Watch and how retractions can sometimes provide valuable insight into the scientific process.

Cara is joined Ivan Oransky, MD, cofounder of “Retraction Watch.” They discuss his path from medicine to science journalism and the important work he’s doing shedding light on falsified, fabricated, fraudulent, and plagiarized articles in the scientific literature. Follow Ivan: @ivanoransky.

Cara is joined Ivan Oransky, MD, cofounder of “Retraction Watch.” They discuss his path from medicine to science journalism and the important work he’s doing shedding light on falsified, fabricated, fraudulent, and plagiarized articles in the scientific literature. Follow Ivan: @ivanoransky.

When researchers publish a new study on chronic fatigue syndrome, a group of patients cry foul—and decide to investigate for themselves. A landmark study on chronic fatigue syndrome sets off a multi-year battle between patients and scientists. On one side, we have a team of psychiatrists who have researched the condition for decades, and have peer-reviewed studies to back up their conclusions. On the other, a group of patients who know this condition more intimately than anyone and set out to expose what they think is bad science.     (Original art by Claire Merchlinsky)   A note to our listeners: This episode references studies that are both controversial and complex. Our interest is always to provide accurate and complete information to our listeners, and to provide context in which the science we cover can be understood. To that end, we’d like to share additional information on the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Two systematic reviews (studies of studies) by The Cochrane Collaboration examine cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise as treatments for ME/CFS. These may help contextualize the findings of the PACE trial and aid our listeners in drawing their own conclusions.   GUESTS Julie Rehmeyer, author of "Through the Shadowlands" Michael Sharpe professor of psychological medicine at Oxford University David Tuller, journalist and visiting lecturer at UC Berkeley Ivan Oransky, journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch   FOOTNOTES The PACE trial home page, includes trial materials, FAQ, and links to the papers that came out of the trial. The PACE trial data and readme file. Virology Blog including David Tuller’s original three part series criticizing PACE (“Trial by Error”), as well as responses from the authors, and more. Patients’ first reanalysis (published on the Virology Blog) of the PACE recovery paper. They later published the re-analysis in the journal Fatigue and the PACE researchers responded to the patients’ re-analysis. PLOS ONE expression of concern, including a response from the authors. Retraction Watch’s recap of the legal proceedings regarding Alem Matthees’ request for anonymized trial data.   CREDITS This episode of Undiscovered was reported and produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff. Editing by Christopher Intagliata. Thanks to Science Friday’s Danielle Dana, Christian Skotte, Brandon Echter, and Rachel Bouton. Fact-checking help by Michelle Harris. Original music by Daniel Peterschmidt. Our theme music is by I am Robot and Proud. Art for this episode by Claire Merchlinsky.  

When researchers publish a new study on chronic fatigue syndrome, a group of patients cry foul—and decide to investigate for themselves. A landmark study on chronic fatigue syndrome sets off a multi-year battle between patients and scientists. On one side, we have a team of psychiatrists who have researched the condition for decades, and have peer-reviewed studies to back up their conclusions. On the other, a group of patients who know this condition more intimately than anyone and set out to expose what they think is bad science.     (Original art by Claire Merchlinsky)   A note to our listeners: This episode references studies that are both controversial and complex. Our interest is always to provide accurate and complete information to our listeners, and to provide context in which the science we cover can be understood. To that end, we’d like to share additional information on the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Two systematic reviews (studies of studies) by The Cochrane Collaboration examine cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise as treatments for ME/CFS. These may help contextualize the findings of the PACE trial and aid our listeners in drawing their own conclusions.   GUESTS Julie Rehmeyer, author of "Through the Shadowlands" Michael Sharpe professor of psychological medicine at Oxford University David Tuller, journalist and visiting lecturer at UC Berkeley Ivan Oransky, journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch   FOOTNOTES The PACE trial home page, includes trial materials, FAQ, and links to the papers that came out of the trial. The PACE trial data and readme file. Virology Blog including David Tuller’s original three part series criticizing PACE (“Trial by Error”), as well as responses from the authors, and more. Patients’ first reanalysis (published on the Virology Blog) of the PACE recovery paper. They later published the re-analysis in the journal Fatigue and the PACE researchers responded to the patients’ re-analysis. PLOS ONE expression of concern, including a response from the authors. Retraction Watch’s recap of the legal proceedings regarding Alem Matthees’ request for anonymized trial data.   CREDITS This episode of Undiscovered was reported and produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff. Editing by Christopher Intagliata. Thanks to Science Friday’s Danielle Dana, Christian Skotte, Brandon Echter, and Rachel Bouton. Fact-checking help by Michelle Harris. Original music by Daniel Peterschmidt. Our theme music is by I am Robot and Proud. Art for this episode by Claire Merchlinsky.  

Source: Effective Altruism Global (original video).

Ivan Oransky is the co-founder (with his colleague Adam Marcus) of Retraction Watch, a website that tracks retractions in the scientific literature. This episode was recorded during Ivan's visit to Georgia Tech to give the Phillips 66 / C.J. "Pete" Silas Program in Ethics and Leadership lecture. We discussed his motivations for starting Retraction Watch, the reasons for the rising number of retractions, and what drives (a very small number of) scientists to commit fraud.Show details: • Hosted and edited by Michael Filler (@michaelfiller) • Recorded on August 31, 2016 • Show notes are available at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/archive/18 • Submit feedback at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/feedback

Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch and global editorial director at MedPage Today, discusses which areas of science are most affected by research fraud, and what motivates individuals to risk their careers by fabricating data.

This episode Derek has a discussion with Dr. Ivan Oransky, MD. Dr. Oransky is the global editorial editor for MedPage Today, and co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site which reports on scientific integrity, fraud, and other issues. He previously was executive editor of Reuters Health and held an editorial position at Scientific American and The Scientist. His main passion is the promotion of science based medicine and encouraging those in the medical field to use a more common sense approach to diagnosis and focus less on 'pre-conditions' and possible symptoms of less-than-certain diseases.

TSK Chef Michael Clarke talks with Ivan Oransky, the co-founder and editor of Retraction Watch, about the blog and its influence, how retractions come to light, how the community responds to retractions for misconduct versus retractions for honest errors, and more.

When science journalist Ivan Oransky co-founded Retraction Watch, a blog with the express purpose of making scientific retractions more public, he didn’t think he would be posting much. “Adam Marcus, my co-founder, was quoted as saying, ‘yeah, we figured we’d post periodically, our mothers would read it, they’d be very happy, nobody would read it other than them.’ Obviously that hasn’t been the case,” says Oransky in this first of a series of podcasts on scientific integrity.

Ivan Oransky is vice president and global editorial director of MedPage Today and co-founder of Retraction Watch. On the show this week we talk to Oransky about retractions and the gospel of the scientific paper.iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/inquiring-minds/id711675943RSS: feeds.feedburner.com/inquiring-mindsStitcher: stitcher.com/podcast/inquiring-mindsTumblr: http://inquiringshow.tumblr.com

Some authors were caught reviewing their own papers, ... weaknesses in modern publishing. By Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky

Some authors were caught reviewing their own papers, ... weaknesses in modern publishing. By Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky

. The post Bad Science & Bad Medicine with Ivan Oransky & Tom Stossel appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Are black boxes outdated technology? With GPS widely available in everyday gadgets like mobile phones, how could Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 just disappear? Adam Rutherford speaks to Dr Matt Greaves, a Lecturer in Accident Investigation at Cranfield University, about how we track aircraft.Earlier this year, a new study from Japan announced a curiously easy way to make stem cells, by placing them in a mild acid bath. It seemed too good to be true, and according to recent critics, it is. One of the authors has declared that the paper should be withdrawn, that he has 'lost faith in it'.Ivan Oransky runs the site RetractionWatch, dedicated to scrutinizing irregular research. He talks to Adam about the value of post-publication peer review, and public scrutiny of science on the internet.A 30,000 year old killer, buried 100 feet under the Siberian permafrost, has risen from the dead. It's a mega virus, with the largest genome of any known virus, and, happily, only infects amoebae. Virologist Professor Jonathan Ball, of the University of Nottingham, explains the implications of reanimating dead viruses.And actual spaceman, retired NASA pilot Captain Jon McBride, came into the studio to share his out-of-this-world memories and prediction that the next generation of astronauts will be chosen on brains not brawn.Producer: Fiona Roberts.

It is estimated that in 2006 alone there were 1.3 million papers published in 23,750 scientific journals. But what happens when a paper gets 'unpublished' - withdrawn or retracted? I caught up with Dr. Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, founders of RetractionWatch. A blog that follows retractions as they happen and investigates the stories behind them, RetractionWatch uncovers a world of falsified data, plagiarism and ethics violations.

Professors at University of Pennsylvania (Drs. Junhyong Kim, Sarah Tishkoff, Frederic Bushman, Susan Ross, Theodore Schurr) address audience questions on human and microbial diversity and how variation in genetic material reflects our history and shapes our health. This is the second part of an evening that began with talks given by Dr. Kim, Tishkoff and Bushman (see Part 1). The panel discussion is moderated by Dr. Ivan Oransky, Executive Editor at Reuters Health.

Professors at University of Pennsylvania (Drs. Junhyong Kim, Sarah Tishkoff, Frederic Bushman) address human and microbial diversity and how variation in genetic material reflects our history and shapes our health. Moderated by Dr. Ivan Oransky, Executive Editor at Reuters Health.

David Biello reports from China on the aftermath of the major earthquake that struck this week. Mark Alpert talks about the portrayal of scientists in fiction. And new online managing editor Ivan Oransky discusses what's up on the Web site. Plus, we'll test your knowledge of some recent science in the news. Web sites mentioned on this episode include www.sciam.com/daily, www.snipurl.com/madsci, www.snipurl.com/hotpepper