Comments on: Warda/Han and Well-Hung Tongues http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597 Now living at http://scienceblogs.com/sunclipse/ Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:58:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37015 Blake Stacey Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:23:56 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37015 Glad to be of assistance! Thanks, in return, for the translation from the Korean. Glad to be of assistance! Thanks, in return, for the translation from the Korean.

]]> By: Attila Csordas http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37014 Attila Csordas Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:37:16 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37014 Nice coverage and thanks for the French translation. Here is an excerpt out the Hankyorhe article translated by a Korean friend of mine: "23rd January was when the review paper of co-authers, Mohamad Warda, a Egyptian professor of Cairo University and Han Jin, a Korean professor of Inje University was published on online of Proteomics. Then many science bloggers was able to reed recent published papers by means of a auto email service as soon as they had been registered in a science library datadase. Atilla Csordas, a master of biotech blog "PIMM", said on a email message sent to the Hankyorhe that he had received the title and abstract of the paper on 25th January and thought the paper using a non-scientific term "soul" seemed very strange. So, he wrote an article on his blog casting some doubt over the paper’s science. After it, many reply comments came and the paper bacame the talk of his blog. Csordas wrote to PZ Myers, the professor of Minesota University and the master of science blog "Pharyngula" recording one milion visist per month, and said about this paper. On 2nd Febrary, Myers wrote an article with the title of "A Baffling Failure of Peer Review" on his blog, and also raised strong doubt saying how the creationist paper could go through peer review of scientific journal. It was AM 10:07. Many reply comments followed soon, and a blogger exposed a evidence of plagiarism of the paper at PM 2:17. Finally, at PM 6:30 John McDonald, a professor of Delaware University opened a comparison table exposing 20 or more paragraphs showing trace of plagiarism. A editorial staff of Proteomics said to the Hankyorhe that "common research papers had to go through strong formal peer review, but this review papar seems to have gone through informal peer review." Nice coverage and thanks for the French translation. Here is an excerpt out the Hankyorhe article translated by a Korean friend of mine:
“23rd January was when the review paper of co-authers, Mohamad Warda, a Egyptian professor of Cairo University and Han Jin, a Korean professor of Inje University was published on online of Proteomics. Then many science bloggers was able to reed recent published papers by means of a auto email service as soon as they had been registered in a science library datadase. Atilla Csordas, a master of biotech blog “PIMM”, said on a email message sent to the Hankyorhe that he had received the title and abstract of the paper on 25th January and thought the paper using a non-scientific term “soul” seemed very strange. So, he wrote an article on his blog casting some doubt over the paper’s science. After it, many reply comments came and the paper bacame the talk of his blog. Csordas wrote to PZ Myers, the professor of Minesota University and the master of science blog “Pharyngula” recording one milion visist per month, and said about this paper.
On 2nd Febrary, Myers wrote an article with the title of “A Baffling Failure of Peer Review” on his blog, and also raised strong doubt saying how the creationist paper could go through peer review of scientific journal. It was AM 10:07. Many reply comments followed soon, and a blogger exposed a evidence of plagiarism of the paper at PM 2:17. Finally, at PM 6:30 John McDonald, a professor of Delaware University opened a comparison table exposing 20 or more paragraphs showing trace of plagiarism. A editorial staff of Proteomics said to the Hankyorhe that “common research papers had to go through strong formal peer review, but this review papar seems to have gone through informal peer review.”

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37013 Blake Stacey Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:25:19 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37013 "One who sails the Internet," I guess — <i>naut</i> having ultimately the same Latin root as <i>nautical.</i> (Oh, I tweaked the translation in a couple places after I first posted this entry, but the sense remains the same.) “One who sails the Internet,” I guess — naut having ultimately the same Latin root as nautical.

(Oh, I tweaked the translation in a couple places after I first posted this entry, but the sense remains the same.)

]]> By: Eric http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37012 Eric Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:15:19 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=597#comment-37012 I was really hoping that "les internautes" was French for "the internets". Alas. But the fact that the word for internet users is that close to "internauts" is still pretty awesome. I was really hoping that “les internautes” was French for “the internets”. Alas. But the fact that the word for internet users is that close to “internauts” is still pretty awesome.

]]>