So my situation goes like this : I happened to land upon a significant discovery in my lab In a very field very hot right now. My bosses are awesome and we send our findings to a ~20 impact factor journal as a rapid communication. Journal review comes back 3 weeks back, reviews are favorable. 2 of 3 reviewers just commended work and did not ask anything and third one asked to show extra proof. I do some extra experiments for revision of article and we send it back this week. I think we satisfactory answered all reviewers questions.

The day we send it back we hear of a similar paper published in a different but very famous journal by a well known scientist of that field. While his work is much deeper than our rapid communication in one cancer , ours is more broad and applicable to more cancers than his work (that’s why rapid communication as we had hoped we could build upon the work) We also show a very different mechanism that his lab didn’t. It’s a question of two different labs landing upon a similar discovery simultaneously. Now my paper is still under review by that top journal. How will his publication this week affect my chances of getting accepted by this journal?
Time line is this:

my article submission: Feb 20 2018
My revision submission : Mar20 2018

Similar paper submitted : October 2017
Similar paper gets accepted : Feb 18 2018
Similar paper gets published: Mar 20 2018

I am pretty sure if he hadn’t published, our paper would have very likely got accepted because it’s a big discovery. But now that he has, I am feeling all the jitters, nightmares etc. it’s literally two years of my day and night hard work that has gone in this work. Just super concerned.
I am not a PhD, just an MD. So I am unaware of how these situations are handled in biomedical scientific publishing.

I am just another post doc in a US university. So my situation goes like this : I happened to land upon a significant discovery in my lab In a very field very hot right now. My bosses are awesome and we send our findings to a ~20 impact factor journal as a rapid communication. Journal review comes back 3 weeks back, reviews are favorable. 2 of 3 reviewers just commended work and did not ask anything and third one asked to show extra proof. I do some extra experiments for revision of article and we send it back this week . I think we satisfactory answered all reviewers
questions.

The day we send it back we hear of a similar paper published in a different but very famous journal by a well known scientist of that field. While his work is much deeper than our rapid communication in one cancer , ours is more broad and applicable to more cancers than his work (that’s why rapid communication as we had hoped we could build upon the work) We also show a very different mechanism that his lab didn’t. It’s a question of two different labs landing upon a similar discovery simultaneously. Now my paper is still under review by that top journal. How will his publication this week affect my chances of getting accepted by this journal?
Time line is this:

my article submission: Feb 20 2018
My revision submission : Mar20 2018

Similar paper submitted : October 2017
Similar paper gets accepted : Feb 18 2018
Similar paper gets published: Mar 20 2018

I am pretty sure if he hadn’t published, our paper would have very likely got accepted because it’s a big discovery. But now that he has, I am feeling all the jitters, nightmares etc. it’s literally two years of my day and night hard work that has gone in this work. Just super concerned.
I am not a PhD, just an MD. So I am unaware of how these situations are handled in biomedical scientific publishing. Please give me hope.

Most clinical trial data is not published at the option of study sponsors. Some unpublished data is on clinicaltrials.gov, but my impression is that it is disorganized. Meta-analyses rarely include the real dataset and the ones that are appear to be crowded out by meta-analyses that only include published research, making them biased in favor of drug approval. This appears especially prevalent in CNS drugs, such as SSRIs.

This is one of the many problems that plague medical research. Many others have been discussed at length by the Stanford meta-researcher John Ioannidis. Given this problem among others, how can a doctor ever be certain he or she is making “real” conclusions about a drug? I understand that doctors only have so much time and they must deal with the best evidence available — that said, I am asking what an ideal solution would be given a reasonable amount of time.

I am a PhD student researching environmental science in Europe. As such, I have received hundreds of environmental samples, including water, sediment etc. over the past year and a half, the extensive work with which has let to two peer-reviewed publications. However, I am still struggling to understand who actually owns these samples – is it the faculty, my supervisor, myself, or the party that sent the sub-samples in the first place? My question is basically – what can I do with the samples without looking at potentially serious issues. More specifically:

1) If there is considerable disagreement between myself and my supervisor as to which analyses are to be carried out on said samples, from a strictly legal standpoint, am I free to carry out the analyses I want to, and which I am sure will benefit my thesis, even though my supervisor disagrees with my approach. There is more than enough material to carry out both mine and my supervisor’s methodology.

2) Can I sub-sample and share some of these samples with other institutions or individuals for the purposes of possible (not documented or otherwise agreed upon) collaboration? Again, I strongly suspect my supervisor will not be happy with this, but would it be considered illegal or as academic/other misconduct. Obviously, my supervisor would know and probably be a co-author on any ensuing publications (if any).

What are the possible repercussions of the above? Could I be expelled from the program, or my PhD revoked after the fact? I could not find any discussion on such topics, and instead kept coming across the usual “fabrication, falsification and plagiarism”-related discussions, hence my questions!

A bit of an odd question, but I would like to search for a phrase in articles from Science (the journal). Yet I cannot do this on Google Scholar–if I specify in the advanced search that the source is Science or “Science,” I get results from all sorts of journals with the word “Science” in them. “Science Magazine” or any further specification yields zero search results. Furthermore, Science Magazine’s website search is terrible, and returns every article in the issue of an article containing a search term (my search is for “hierarchical model”).

Has anyone else run into this? Can anyone think of a search term trick that might help?

I am interested in other academics’ experiences with large experiments (especially something like the LHC). To what extent do the “engineers” who design and build the machine (solder electronics, assemble quadrupole magnets, etc) interact with “scientists” who determine the program (who might want to test their 11-dimensional model etc)? Do the two sides take an active interest in each other’s work and give constructive suggestions to one another? Are the technicians all hired locally? How many in the “engineering” camp have PhDs?

(It’s also possible to label the two groups “experimentalists” vs “theorists”, though for the former I really mean people involved in the construction and day-to-day operations – I’m not interested in semantics here)

While the Higgs was at a sigma of ~4, I heard that postdocs and PhD students at CERN could volunteer for maintenance and similar tasks, and that those who did would have their names on the “Higgs paper” (hence the notoriously large author lists). Was this true and is it still the case?