Originally posted at THL Blog http://thlibrary.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/hashtags-of-the-week-hotw-week-of-may-20-2013/ by Chris Bulin, @Arduanne.
I’m sure most of our readers know that a groundbreaking article was published on May 15th regarding patient specific stem cell cloning. What has come to light since then about the publishing process for the article has been slightly disturbing. First, I looked at the original announcements and information about stem cell research, then I went on to explore issues surrounding science communication and scholarly publishing. It all started (as far as I could tell) with this announcement:
Human Embryonic Stem Cells Derived by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer! Paper from Shoukhrat Mitalipov et. al @ ow.ly/l3I0d
— Cell at CellPress (@CellCellPress) May 15, 2013
This immediately lead to ethical and policy questions being raised. Many discussions were found on the following hashtags #bioethics, #stemcell, #stemcells, and #cloning.
Even SCNT’s need caffeine to function correctly MT @ananyo: Huge RT @naturenews: Human stem cells created by cloning dlvr.it/3N7njP
— David Steinberg (@DavidASteinberg) May 15, 2013
@naturenews @cellcellpress more interesting coverage of the Mitalipov paper bit.ly/12AVmbp bit.ly/16zQglc
— Molecular Cell (@MolecularCell) May 17, 2013
Reporters are having trouble with the scientific, legal, and ethical aspects of this week’s #cloning news: nationalreview.com/corner/348651/…
— TheNewAtlantis.com (@tnajournal) May 17, 2013
Human cloning is finally here, and it is going to spark a political conflagration. ow.ly/ldieW #cloning #bioethics
— Discovery Institute (@DiscoveryCSC) May 20, 2013
What we found out this week was that the paper was pushed through the publication process so quickly that some (minor) mistakes were found through post-publication peer review including a manipulated image. These conversations are still unfolding.
Stem-cell cloner acknowledges honest errors in groundbreaking paper nature.com/news/stem-cell… #Bioethics #HCSM
— Berman Institute(@bermaninstitute) May 23, 2013
Surprising carelessness from authors, publishers in Cell stem-cell cloning paper. However, findings still seem valid. dlvr.it/3Q2DsP
— Alex Goglia (@alexgoglia) May 23, 2013
.@wilbanks Time for someone to start scholarlyca .com: “Scholarly Closed Access — critical analysis of scholarly closed-access publishing”
— Mike Taylor (@MikeTaylor) May 23, 2013
I mean, we all hate the sloooooow publishing turnaround times, but three days is…too far in the other direction.
— Sci Curious (@scicurious) May 23, 2013
I don’t blame the authors of the #stemcell paper for the rushed pub–who wouldn’t say “hey, great!” to a sub 3 week turnaround on a paper??!
— Andy Kass (@DrAndyKass) May 23, 2013
For everyone watching for errors in the Cell stem cell paper – @naturenews now has the response from the authors nature.com/news/stem-cell…
— Richard Van Noorden (@Richvn) May 23, 2013
@pubpeer Thanks! Let me know if you hear anything else. @cellcellpress is not talking (that’s usually how they roll).
— nprGlobalHealth (@nprGlobalHealth) May 23, 2013
“Science me up” – essential advice from @edyong209 for scientists asked to comment on a paper:phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/22/a-g… #COMPASSmtg #scicomm
— LizNeeley (@LizNeeley) May 22, 2013
Cloning paper kerfuffle highlights hazards of rushed publication and merits of post-pub peer review. nature.com/news/stem-cell… @naturenews
— Kristen Delevich (@K_dele) May 23, 2013
This has lent some steam to the conversations that were already focused on the publishing process and its role in research, faculty status, and science communication.
Are We In a Rut? Explaining the Increasing Homogenization of Scholarly and Scientific Publishing wp.me/pcvbl-8qC
— Scholarly Kitchen (@scholarlykitchn) May 16, 2013
Researchers and Scientific Groups Make New Push Against Impact Factors shar.es/ZqzLk via @chronicle #scholarlypublishing #metrics
— Garrett Eastman (@notinmy) May 16, 2013
sciencemag.org/content/340/61… This Science editorial on Impact Factors is a must-read for my scientist friends
— David Shiffman (@WhySharksMatter) May 23, 2013
RT @shanakimball Follow #ciccli13 for “Emerging Options for Scholarly Publishing” conference cic.net/calendar/confe…
— lorcan dempsey (@lorcanD) May 22, 2013
Michael Eisen: Apotheosis of cynicism and deceit from scholarly publishers ow.ly/libR1 #openaccess
— Richard Poynder (@RickyPo) May 22, 2013
My latest: Why stories make a good vehicle for science communication davenussbaum.com/narrative-tran…
— Dave Nussbaum (@davenuss79) May 21, 2013
Emerging Technologies Librarian 