442 research outputs found
Ecotechnologies applied on agricultural irrigation and drainage channels- case study Taichung Irrigation Association in Taiwan
No full textOptimal design for hydraulic efficiency performance of free-water-surface constructed wetlands
No full textOptical detection of magnetoelectric effect in the composite consisting of InGaN/GaN multiple quantum wells and FeCo thin film
No full textMechanism for serrated cathode dissolution in Cu/Sn/Cu interconnect under electron current stressing
No full textTunable photoluminescence and photoconductivity in ZnO one-dimensional nanostructures with a second below-gap beam
No full text
Improvement performance for fish habitat with variant configurations of riprap works – Case study Nei-Go Stream, Taipei, Taiwan
No full text
WHY HAS THE PAPER ENTITLED "GREATWALL-PHOSPHORYLATED Α-ENDOSULFINE IS BOTH AN INHIBITOR AND A SUBSTRATE OF PP2A-B55 HETEROTRIMERS" BY WILLIAMS, M.C. ET AL. THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN ELIFE [WILLIAMS, B.C., FILTER, J.J., BLAKE-HODEK, K.A., FUDA, N.J., SHALLOWAY, D. AND GOLDBERG, M.L. (2014) ELIFE, DOI: 10.7554/ELIFE.01695 ] NOT BEEN RETRACTED?
No full textThe paper entitled "Greatwall-phosphorylated α-Endosulfine is both an inhibitor and a substrate of PP2A-B55 heterotrimers" authored by Williams, B.C. et al. [Williams, B.C., Filter, J.J., Blake-Hodek, K.A., Fuda, N.J., Shalloway, D. and Goldberg, M.L. and Published in the Journal eLife [eLife (2014) e01695, doi: 10.7554/elife.01695] was the subject of an investigative critique [Tung, H.Y.L. (2020) J. Invest. Cri. Pub. Sci. Articles, Vol. 1, pp193-200, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5115188]. It was previously reported that the paper by Williams, et al. was riddled with Dishonest Scientific Reported, Data Falsification and possibly Data Fabrication. After, contacting the Editor in Chief of eLife, Drs Michael B. Eisen, the author of this report was referred to the Managing Editor of eLife, Dr Wei Mun Chan who is not an expert in Enzymology by any stretch of imagination. The Managing Editor of eLife apparently obtained some response from Williams, et al. which was not only unsatisfactory scientifically but aggravated the seriousness of this case as it was revealed that Williams et al. obtained conclusions of their paper based on some experiments in which they were counting ~3 cpm of radioactivity above background. When the author of this report pointed the fantastical results that Williams et al. claimed they were able to obtain, the author of this Report received no sign of life from the Managing editor and the Editor in Chief of eLife. This Report provides further evidence that Williams, B.C. et al. committed Dishonest Scientific Reporting, Data Falsification and Data Fabrication in their paper
- …
