Mendel's Pink Sheets

February 22, 2010

One of our readers managed to unearth an unbelievable bit of scientific history and we are able to provide it to you thanks to his generosity. With no further delay we present….

click image

All credit, and my gratitude for the LOLz goes to Donn Young who describes the source of his re-creation as follows:

Long ago and far away [like the 1970’s], I read an article in the old Journal of Irreproducible Results [JIR] that had a copy of Gregor Mendel’s pink sheets. I have no idea who the author(s) was and I can no longer find the issue [or much else], but have this rewrite I put together using the 90’s review criteria. I’d hand it out [on pink paper] to junior faculty as encouragement in the face of an unscored application – but hey, Mendel didn’t have to worry about tenure.
Donn Young
Research Scientist and Director of Biostatistics [retired]
Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center

Did you read this fascinating bit of….whatever…from Nature? I picked this up from writedit’s thread. The title and subtitles are, I kid you not, this.
Nature‘s choices: Exploding the myths surrounding how and why we select our research papers.
You might almost think they had read my recent post on the business of spin. Apparently they think they are taking some unfair knocks about their process for publishing papers and want to spin the story back around to their liking. Fair enough.
I don’t buy their argument so I’ll take my hand at spinning it back my way.
Now, what are these evil myths you might ask? They have a list.

One myth that never seems to die is that Nature’s editors seek to inflate the journal’s impact factor by sifting through submitted papers (some 16,000 last year) in search of those that promise a high citation rate. We don’t.

Read the rest of this entry »