b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 6163373 (Thread)

"adapted from the researchers original map" ?
according to that, by implication all the HIV in the UK came from Serbia.

Right.

I claim journalistic bullshit. Again.
(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:06, archived)
Most reporting of science stories in the media annoys me.
Generally it is because the journalists don't understand what they are writing about.
(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:20, archived)
In this case, I'm more concerned about the fact the article doesn't actually exist.
The chap concerned has done some HIV spread research in the late 90's and 2005 but nothing since.

Unless he's released details to the press prior to publication. In which case he's got no fucking place as a scientist as clearly all he gives a shit about is media attention. If that's true I hope they pull the article.
(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:24, archived)
Having had a quick search of the articles I have available
I can't find anything recent he has done. It might be a pre-publication release but if that is the case I would be even more dubious. Is he releasing the information before it gets rubbished in peer review?

Either way, bad science.
(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:29, archived)
actually
given I'm guessing you've got the same sort of resources I have (PubMed, SciDirect, Athens?) I just use Google Scholar, it's better than all of them ;) (only for finding abstracts mind, obviously you can't access a lot of the papers without Athens etc)
(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:33, archived)
Yep, PubMed, SciDirect, Elsevier, JSTOR.
All the usual suspects.

I use Google scholar for abstract searches to find general papers about what i'm writing about, then have to log in through the library portal to get full access.
(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:38, archived)
Also, there's no such article in Retrovirology. Interesting.

(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:22, archived)
This is the problem with arts graduates writing about science

(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:25, archived)
that one actually has a source reference on the picture though
suggesting that it really will be in that journal at some point. If the author has released it prior to publication, he's an arse and he'll have infringed the journal copyright. If the journal has, they are guilty of a serious breach in the principles of peer-reviewed publications. Because we can't look at the actual original paper and see what the "truth" is.
(, Wed 20 May 2009, 10:29, archived)