Friday, August 30, 2013

Rotas las negociaciones entre Mcrosoft, Google y el Gobierno sobre la Transparencia...

Microsoft and Google to sue government over transparency

Summary: Negotiations between big tech companies and the government to disclose their cooperation have broken down. Things may change today.
In a blog entry by Microsoft General Counsel & Executive Vice President, Legal & Corporate Affairs Brad Smith, the company explained how negotiations with the government over permission "…to publish sufficient data relating to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders" have faltered. Both Microsoft and Google will proceed with litigation to seek permission from the FISA court.
Ever since the public disclosure of the NSA's surveillance programs by former contractor Edward Snowden, Microsoft, Google and many other companies have called on the government to allow them to disclose the extent of their cooperation so that customers and foreign governments can make informed decisions about the trustworthiness of the companies' services.
Smith says in the blog that both Microsoft and Google filed suit in June for permission to disclose the information, and they believe they have the clear constitutional right to do so. On 6 occasions the government has asked for extensions from the court before replying to the suit.
According to this order from the FISA court, 5PM today (presumably eastern time, as that is the time of the court's seat) is the current deadline for the current extension. Smith says that Microsoft and Google won't agree to any more extensions.
In part because of the secrecy under which it operates, the court has a reputation as a rubber stamp for government requests, although both the court and government dispute this characterization. Finding for Microsoft and Google, not giving the government the benefit of any doubt, could be a way for the court to assert its independence in a public way.
Today may also be a good day for the government to cave on the Microsoft/Google petition. It's standard procedure, when you want to bury news, to release it on a Friday. Releasing it on the Friday before Labor Day buries it that much deeper.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Opiniones sobre el nuevo CEO para Microsoft. Tomado de ZDNET Today

Microsoft's new CEO will have tougher road than Ballmer

Summary: Microsoft's new CEO will be like an NFL coach taking over a 10-6 team. You either win a championship or you fail. Simply put, Microsoft isn't screwed up enough to make the new chief look like a hero.
Microsoft is in the market for a new CEO within the next year and while running a technology leader may be appealing the new captain may have a tougher time than outgoing chief Steve Ballmer.
On Friday, Microsoft surprised the tech industry by announcing that Ballmer was going to retire in a planned transition. Ballmer was a lightning rod, but the real shock was that he was stepping down---especially as Microsoft just set itself up to be a services and devices company.
We have a short list of potential Ballmer successors and you can nitpick over Microsoft's product choices all you want. But here's the reality: Microsoft's job isn't getting any easier. The tech giant is sprawling and it's unclear whether it can compete with Google, Apple and Amazon---three companies with more focused businesses.
More: Microsoft's Ballmer on his biggest regret, the next CEO and more | Microsoft's Ballmer: Why Microsoft doesn't want to be IBM (or Apple) and more | Ballmer's leaving: Who's next? | Microsoft's next CEO: Who's on the short list? | Here's Microsoft CEO Ballmer's goodbye note to the troops | Microsoft CEO Ballmer to retire in the next 12 months  
The biggest challenge for Microsoft's new CEO can be found in one simple question: What's the glue holding the company together?
During the Bill Gates era and part of Ballmer's rein the answer was clear: Windows.
Today Windows isn't necessarily the glue of the company. The new glue may be the cloud.
Microsoft's latest mission statement to be a "devices and services company focused on empowering customers in the activities they value most" is a bit mushy by design. Microsoft is a tech conglomerate of multiple billion dollar companies. There's no way a new CEO---internal or external---will know every one of those businesses well. Consider:
  • Google is search and ads. 
  • Amazon is commerce and cloud. 
  • Apple is hardware, software and ecosystem. 
  • Microsoft is a work in progress.

The new CEO will have to take on a transformation started by a guy leaving and better define Microsoft. Should Xbox be spun off? Do Microsoft's consumer and enterprise businesses really go together? Does Microsoft need to be more about corporate software where it is doing very well? What is Windows going forward? Is Microsoft a cloud company first and foremost?

An answer like "all of the above" probably isn't sufficient.
Ballmer's record as Microsoft CEO will be mixed. He missed the mobile curve. Vista was a disaster. Windows 8 was a ballsy move that hasn't paid off just yet. Microsoft has a strong cloud position, but Wall Street is starting to freak as capital expenses for data centers is projected to rise from 4 percent of revenue in fiscal 2013 to 9 percent of sales this year, according to Barclays.
Shareholders aren't going to give Microsoft the leeway to spend heavily to keep up with Google and Amazon on infrastructure.
Simply put, the new CEO for Microsoft will be in a tough spot. The company isn't a disaster where there will be a 2-year honeymoon just to stabilize the patient. The new CEO won't look like a savior because Microsoft doesn't need to be saved. The CEO following Ballmer will be more akin to Virginia Rometty taking over at IBM as CEO than Marissa Mayer at Yahoo or Meg Whitman leading HP out of the abyss. 
However, Microsoft also isn't firing on all cylinders and is transforming its approach. Microsoft is a tweener company that should arguably be broken up. In many respects, the new CEO is like an NFL coach taking over a 10-6 team. You either win a championship or you fail.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Referencias interesantes sobre la Tecnlogía en este momento y su impacto

Por qué los días de la red eléctrica americana...están contados (Tomado de Bloomberg BusinessWeek)


Why the U.S. Power Grid's Days Are Numbered

By , , and                                                           August 22, 2013
There are 3,200 utilities that make up the U.S. electrical grid, the largest machine in the world. These power companies sell $400 billion worth of electricity a year, mostly derived from burning fossil fuels in centralized stations and distributed over 2.7 million miles of power lines. Regulators set rates; utilities get guaranteed returns; investors get sure-thing dividends. It’s a model that hasn’t changed much since Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. And it’s doomed to obsolescence.
That’s the opinion of David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy, a wholesale power company based in Princeton, N.J. What’s afoot is a confluence of green energy and computer technology, deregulation, cheap natural gas, and political pressure that, as Crane starkly frames it, poses “a mortal threat to the existing utility system.” He says that in about the time it has taken cell phones to supplant land lines in most U.S. homes, the grid will become increasingly irrelevant as customers move toward decentralized homegrown green energy. Rooftop solar, in particular, is turning tens of thousands of businesses and households into power producers. Such distributed generation, to use the industry’s term for power produced outside the grid, is certain to grow.
Crane, 54, a Harvard-educated father of five, drives himself to work every day in his electric Tesla Model S. He gave his college-age son an electric Nissan Leaf. He worries about the impact of warming on the earth his grandchildren will inherit. And he seems to relish his role as utility industry gadfly, framing its future in Cassandra-like terms. As Crane sees it, some utilities will get trapped in an economic death spiral as distributed generation eats into their regulated revenue stream and forces them to raise rates, thereby driving more customers off the grid. Some customers, particularly in the sunny West and high-cost Northeast, already realize that “they don’t need the power industry at all,” Crane says.
VIDEO: NRG Energy CEO David Crane: I Own a Tesla, Fisker and a Nissan Leaf
He’s not alone in his assessment, though. An unusually frank January report by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the utilities trade group, warned members that distributed generation and companion factors have essentially put them in the same position as airlines and the telecommunications industry in the late 1970s. “U.S. carriers that were in existence prior to deregulation in 1978 faced bankruptcy,” the report states. “The telecommunication businesses of 1978, meanwhile, are not recognizable today.” Crane prefers another analogy. Like the U.S. Postal Service, he says, “utilities will continue to serve the elderly or the less fortunate, but the rest of the population moves on.” And while his utility brethren may see the grid as “the one true monopoly, I’m working for the day the grid is diminished.”
Anthony Earley Jr., CEO of giant Pacific Gas & Electric, doesn’t share Crane’s timetable for the coming disruption—he thinks it’s further out—but he does agree about the seriousness of the threat. Solar users drain revenue while continuing to use utility transmission lines for backup or to sell their power back to the power company. How can power companies pay for necessary maintenance and upgrades of the grid if that free ride continues? “No less than the stability of the grid is at stake,” he says. So far regulators in Louisiana, Idaho, and California have rejected calls to impose fees or taxes on solar users.
Worldwide revenue from installation of solar power systems will climb to $112 billion a year in 2018, a rise of 44 percent, taking sales away from utilities, according to analysts at Navigant Research, which tracks worldwide clean-energy trends. “Certain regions in California, Arizona, and Hawaii are already feeling the pain,” says Karin Corfee, a managing director of Navigant’s energy practice. “We’ll see a different model emerge.”
STORY: Ask Bill Clinton: How Can We Encourage Homeowners to Adopt Solar Energy?
After subsidies, solar power is competitive with grid power costs in large parts of those markets. Some areas in the Northeast will reach a similar “grid parity”—where residential solar is equal in cost to power from a utility—within three years; a majority of states could get there in 10 years or less, according to data from a variety of green energy and regulatory sources. A July report by Navigant says that by the end of 2020, solar photovoltaic-produced power will be competitive with retail electricity prices—without subsidies—“in a significant portion of the world.” Green-thinking communities such as San Francisco and Boulder, Colo., are starting to bypass local utility monopolies to buy an increasing portion of power from third-party solar and wind providers. Chicago recently doubled the amount of power it buys from downstate wind farms.
The solar and distributed generation push is being speeded up by a parallel revolution in microgrids. Those are computer-controlled systems that let consumers and corporate customers do on a small scale what only a Consolidated Edison or Pacific Gas & Electric could do before: seamlessly manage disparate power sources without interruption. Microgrids have long been used to manage emergency backup power systems. A 26-megawatt microgrid completed in 2011 kept the power on at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s White Oak research center in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy last year. It also saves the federal government an estimated $11 million a year in electricity costs. The microgrid’s ultimate potential, however, is in turning every person, company, or institution with a renewable energy power system into a self-sustaining utility. Imagine your house switching from power it generates itself to power from the grid the way a Toyota (TM) Prius switches from battery power to gasoline.
Outside the makeshift offices of Sunora Energy Solutions, in suburban Phoenix, the thermometer reads 112F on a recent afternoon as Crane takes a seat and begins explaining his plans to adapt to a post-grid world. While NRG’s main business remains supplying electricity to utilities in the wholesale market from Staten Island, N.Y., to San Diego, Crane has overseen about $1 billion in solar and green-tech investments, including a 50 percent stake in the 290-megawatt Agua Caliente utility-scale solar plant in Arizona due to be completed in 2014. (A Warren Buffett-controlled enterprise owns the other half.) Last year, NRG bought a 50 percent stake in 22-month-old Sunora for an undisclosed sum. Its business is stealing the revenue stream of the very companies NRG sells power to.
Sunora has only a few dozen employees and an overhead befitting its warehouse location. Still, it’s abuzz with ideas to tap into the changes detailed in the EEI report. Its engineers have come up with solar canopies that can be installed in supermarket and department store parking lots or above drive-up ATMs. They provide shade and generate clean power that can be used by the buyer or sold back to the grid. Sunora says it has pitched a mass purchase of canopies to a large U.S. retailer for its parking lots, though it won’t name the company. For customers who think the canopies are too industrial-looking, Sunora developed a decorative solar pergola—a kind of standalone patio—that provides the output of a rooftop system without cluttering the roof with solar panels. It can be installed in two days. Crane says he can sell lots of them to luxury hotels, though he hasn’t yet. Sunora is also working with DEKA, a Manchester (N.H.) technology-development company, on a microgrid package for homeowners. The price isn’t set yet, but Sunora executives say they hope to start selling a 10-kilowatt residential system for about $20,000 in 2015.
Businesses are adopting solar and smart microgrids at an escalating rate to beat rising power costs and burnish their green cred. Verizon is investing $100 million in solar and fuel-cell projects that will directly supply 19 offices and data centers in three states. Wal-Mart Stores, with 4,522 locations in the U.S., expects to have 1,000 solar-powered stores by 2020. MGM Resorts International’s Mandalay Bay resort convention center in Las Vegas hired NRG to install a 6.2-megawatt solar system—enough to meet as much as 20 percent of Mandalay Bay’s demand. Wal-Mart U.S. President Bill Simon extolled the virtues of the company’s solar program in March when he told an analyst at an investor meeting that solar was often cheaper than grid power. Besides, Wal-Mart has a lot of roofs, and “roofs are big places where we can gather a lot of solar,” Simon said.
STORY: Duke Kills Florida Nuclear Project, Keeps Customers' Money
In full pitch mode, Crane sees an “underserved market” for NRG in bringing solar to businesses—from grocery stores to office buildings to athletic stadiums—requiring from 100 kilowatts to 10 megawatts of power. At Lincoln Financial Field, home of the Philadelphia Eagles, NRG installed a $30 million system of more than 11,000 solar panels and 14 mini wind turbines that can supply about a third of the stadium’s needs.
When Crane is asked whether he, CEO of a company that gets nearly all of its $8.4 billion revenue from selling coal-powered electricity to utilities, risks alienating his traditional customers, he says the changing world requires changing strategies. He then crisply runs through his vision of how the next two to three decades play out. The grid continues to shrink—U.S. power use actually peaked in 2007—as distributed generation captures an increasing share from utility-generated power. There won’t be much need for new large-scale transmission lines after that, except perhaps to gather and distribute power from remote wind farms. Crane says at least some existing transmission lines “are about to become stranded costs”—utilities simply won’t require the capacity they have now.
VIDEO: U.K. Sets Pace in Global Smart Grid Investments

Thursday, August 22, 2013

El barco carguero más grande del mundo visita Polonia por vez primera...

The largest ship in the world with a length of 400 meters (1200 feet long) docked on Wednesday in DCT container terminal at the port of Gdansk. The unit sailed to the Polish during his first trip to Korea. Operated by a Maersk Line container operator.

Container ship, known as the Triple-E, set sail for its first cruise line July 15 in the Korean port of Busan. As announced PAP DCT Gdańsk is the only port on the side of the Danish Straits, which supports such large units. 
Triple-E vessel is 400 meters long (1200 feet long), 59 meters (1800 feet) wide and 73 meters (220 feet) high. On your board can take 18,000 TEUs. TEU is a standard container capacity. The next-largest container ship operated in the world is the individual Emma Maersk, the Danish operator owned by Maersk Line. Emma Maersk is 397.7 meters long, 56.4 meters wide, and your board can take close to 15 thousand. TEU. The container was submitted to Gdansk in June 2011.

Representatives of Maersk Poland Sp.  reported several months ago that the ship is "one of the greatest long-term investments Maersk Line last year." They noted that the container is unique, not only in size but also in terms of performance, cost and energy efficiency. company plans to phase out old ships and replace them with more modern units.

In Gdansk, on the beach in Stogi created a vantage point with a telescope, from which you can observe the entry of the vessel into the DCT. The owner of the unit on Friday announced the opening of the City of Maersk on the Fish Market, where it will be possible to find such as the ship was built, and what technical innovations were used to build it.
The ship will stay in Gdansk to August 24. (PAP) 
South region of US alone is responsible for about 35% of trade between Poland and USA plus we have 5.3 bln USD trade with Latin America last year.  
Esto explica muchas cosas:
  • La vision del Puerto de Miami y del Estado de la Florida en preparar al Sur de la Florida para la llegada de esos barcos a partir del Canal de Panamá ampliado.
  • El entusiasmo de Polonia por integrarse en el Congreso Hemisférico de CAMACOL
  • La importancia estratégica de los 34 años de logros del Congreso Hemisférico como catalizador del comercio internacional
  • La creciente potencia de Miami para convertirse en la Puerta del Mundo contemporáneo




Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Tecnología: El Modelo S de TESLA destruye las Pruebas de Seguridad...Literalmente


Tesla's Model S Sedan Destroys Safety Tests ... Literally

By    August 20, 2013
Tesla's Model S Sedan Destroys Safety Tests ... Literally
In the long history of automotive safety press releases, no carmaker has ever issued a statement quite like the one put out by Tesla Motors (TSLA) on Monday night.

The statement begins by looking at a battery of tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Tesla’s Model S all-electric luxury sedan. The reader is quickly told that the Model S got a 5-star rating overall and a 5-star rating in all the subcategories. “Of all vehicles tested, including every major make and model approved for sale in the United States, the Model S set a new record for the lowest likelihood of injury to occupants,” Tesla said.

Ah, but being possibly the safest commercial car ever built is not good enough for Tesla and its chief executive officer, Elon Musk, who actually penned the press release. No, Tesla must inflict pain on the entire testing process and its pedestrian equipment.

And so, in paragraph No. 8, we learn that testers tried to crush the roof of the Model S. And we learn that the crusher was crushed. “Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4 g’s,” Tesla said. “While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner’s car without the roof caving in.”

So, Model S owners, you can sleep easy if a Carnado ever rolls through town.

This release is typical Musk. It’s got a showman’s flair, plenty of bravado, and quite a bit of physics thrown in. Once it hit the Web, various commentators were quick to start poking fun at Tesla’s boasting. Tech writer Dan Frommer tweeted: “While the exact number of inches could not be measured due to Mr. Musk’s mental forces breaking the testing machine.” And the parody Twitter account @BoredElonMusk declared, “I’ve hit a wall for new ideas this morning guys. Lucky I was in a Model S so I’m completely safe.”

There’s a serious element to all this, though. In 10 years, Tesla has come out of nowhere to show up Detroit in a big way. Yes, the Model S is really expensive. And, yes, Tesla has a long way to go to prove itself as a steady, profitable enterprise. But its first quasi-mainstream car has now set the highest-ever marks on all manner of car industry tests while also winning the car industry’s most prestigious awards.

As Musk explains in the release, there are some straightforward reasons why the Model S is so safe. For one, the car does not have a boulder of an engine, filled with combustible fuel, under its hood. Instead, the Model S has a front trunk—aka, a “frunk.” That gives the Model S a long crumple zone to absorb the force of an impact. Meanwhile, the Model S’s one-foot wide electric motor has been mounted close to the rear axle, where it can cause relatively little harm.

Later, Musk explains: “The Model S was also substantially better in rollover risk, with the other top vehicles being approximately 50 percent worse. During testing at an independent facility, the Model S refused to turn over via the normal methods and special means were needed to induce the car to roll. The reason for such a good outcome is that the battery pack is mounted below the floor pan, providing a very low center of gravity, which simultaneously ensures exceptional handling and safety.”

Some more details on the “special means” would be nice here. Did Tesla hire the Hulk as an independent contractor? Did Musk hitch the Model S to one of his SpaceX rockets? Inquiring minds want to know.
Vance is a technology writer for Bloomberg Businessweek in Palo Alto, Calif. Follow him on Twitter @valleyhack.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Tecnlogía: La encrucijada de los e-mails (Tomado de Bloomberg BusinessWeek)


Why It Will Be Difficult to Create Secure E-mail

By  Gplus_small August 19, 2013
Why It Will Be Difficult to Create Secure E-mail
Two major secure e-mail services shut down earlier this month, with the people who run them claiming that e-mail inherently lacks privacy, and to keep operating would give their clients a false sense of security.

On Friday afternoon one of the companies, Silent Circle, posted further explanation of its argument. Basically it comes down to this: While it may be possible to encrypt the contents of e-mail to prevent someone else from reading it, there is no way for an e-mail provider to secure the information about who is communicating with whom. Over the past few months it has become clear that this information may be as desirable as the content of the messages themselves.

This has always been a potential vulnerability with e-mail, but one that was difficult to exploit until relatively recently, wrote Louis Kowolowski, SIlent Circle’s technical operations manager, on the company’s blog:
In the past, securing the body of the message was sufficient. The tools and techniques used for snooping were not on a large enough scale to allow the metadata to be useful. With the tapping of backbone internet providers, interested parties can now see all traffic on the internet. The days where it was possible for two people to have a truly private conversation over e-mail, if they ever existed, are long over.
There are two technical issues that lead to this insecurity. The first is that encrypted messages are sent by the recipient and the sender exchanging encryption keys–tools that scramble a message and allow only the intended recipient to unscramble it. To do this, both parties need to be online whenever a message is sent. This is not how people use e-mail.

Second, current technical standards for e-mail require that some information remain unencrypted, such as the identity of the people communicating, the time messages were sent, and the subject. “So, a PGP-encrypted message with the subject line ‘Pricing info for blasting caps’ may be sort of ridiculous,” writes Kowolowski.

There are some situations where this matters and others where it does not. E-mail can be secured if the only goal is to make sure no one can intercept sensitive information being passed along over it. One example is a company trying to protect its intellectual property.

The parties aren’t worried about someone finding out they are in communication with one another. In other instances, such as activists organizing political activity, a record of who is communicating could be just as important as what they’re saying. In an analysis earlier this summer, for instance, an associate professor of sociology at Duke showed how simple information about which American dissidents were involved in which organizations during the 1700s could have led the British to Paul Revere’s door before he had a chance to ride.

There is widespread agreement among security experts that digital privacy is much more complicated in the wake of recent discloses about the National Security Agency’s surveillance practices. Some believe that the challenges will simply serve as a way to spark innovation to solve those issues. But doing so with e-mail will likely require a change in the way that all links of the e-mail chain work. A single provider can’t make its communications secure, argues Kowolowski. It would take all of them.
Brustein is a writer for in New York.

Friday, August 16, 2013

El fraude: Un mal que empeora (Tomado de PLOS ONE Journal Information:, en Internet)

Es casi una costumbre hablar mal de los politicos. Pues gente tan seria como los científicos tienen un record no muy diferente: (Tomado de una publicación on-line llamada PLOS ONE Journal Information:
Dos investigadores cometieron el 25% de los fraudes científicos
MateriaPor Daniel Mediavilla

Evolución del número de artículos publicados (negro), retractados por fraude (rojo) y por error (azul).
Evolución del número de artículos publicados (negro),
retractados por fraude (rojo)
y por error (azul).

Un estudio trata de explicar por qué el fraude científico se ha multiplicado por diez desde 1975

En 1936, Ronald Fisher, uno de los padres de la ciencia estadística moderna, publicó un artículo de 26 páginas en el que criticaba otro trabajo científico de 1866 escrito por un monje austriaco titulado Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden. El religioso en cuestión era nada menos que Gregor Mendel y en su artículo explicaba sus experimentos sobre cruces de plantas con los que fundó la genética. Según Fisher, “los datos de la mayoría si no de todos los experimentos” habían “sido falsificados para coincidir fielmente con las previsiones de Mendel”. La controversia sigue sin cerrarse con claridad y muestra cómo la preocupación por el fraude científico es casi inherente a la ciencia desde sus orígenes.
Sin embargo, algunos análisis recientes indican que se está produciendo un incremento preocupante en la anulación de artículos científicos por distintos tipos de fraude y mala práctica. Según un artículo publicado en la revista PNAS en octubre del año pasado, el fraude científico se ha multiplicado por 10 desde 1975. Ese estudio mostraba además que la gran mayoría de los trabajos retirados no se debían a errores sino a engaños intencionados de sus autores. Otro estudio elaborado por Thomson Reuters para The Wall Street Journal señalaba que, mientras el número de artículos publicados en revistas científicas solo ha crecido un 44% desde 2001, el de artículos retirados se ha multiplicado por 15.
Ahora, un grupo de investigadores —entre los que se encuentran los autores del artículo que señalaba el incremento de la retirada de trabajos científicos de las revistas en PNAS— ha tratado de dar alguna explicación a este fenómeno. En la revista PLoS One indican que las anulaciones de artículos de autores que sólo han tenido que retirar uno de sus trabajos son más comunes y tienen más relevancia que la de los profesionales del fraude, sin embargo ofrecen un dato que sugiere que los grandes defraudadores también han tenido un gran impacto en la anulación de artículos. En 2011, solo dos investigadores, el anestesista alemán Joachim Boldt y el investigador japonés de cáncer Naoki Mori, fueron responsables del 25,9% de todos los artículos retirados.
Al menos un 2% de los investigadores habrían cometido fraude al menos alguna vez en su carrera, según un estudio
En relación a estos defraudadores en serie, el artículo señala la gran cantidad de tiempo que requiere cazarlos y eliminar sus publicaciones. En 2000, se observaron anomalías en los resultados del anestesista Yoshitaka Fujii. Han sido necesarios más de diez años para que se retiren 17 de sus artículos y existen más de un centenar bajo sospecha que podrían acabar saliendo de las revistas en las que fueron publicados próximamente.
Varias explicaciones
Además de mencionar la influencia de estos investigadores, los autores del estudio ofrecen varias explicaciones al incremento del fraude. Por un lado, apuntan, puede significar no solo que se engañe ahora con más frecuencia sino que se esté detectando mejor el engaño. Hasta 2002, eran necesarios de media más de cuatro años (49,8 meses) para detectar un artículo fraudulento y retirarlo. Desde 2002, ese tiempo se ha reducido a menos de dos años (23,8 meses). “Esto sugiere que las revistas están retirando artículos más rápido que en el pasado, aunque algunos artículos recientes que requieren ser retirados aún no han sido reconocidos”, escriben en su artículo.
Por otro lado, hay nuevas causas para retirar artículos que se han incorporado en un periodo relativamente reciente. El primer artículo anulado por fraude fue publicado en 1979 y el primero que lo fue por tratarse de una publicación duplicada apareció en 1990.
En los últimos años se ha reducido el tiempo desde la publicación de un artículo fraudulento hasta su retirada
Entre los datos optimistas, los autores indican que las revistas con un factor de impacto mayor detectan y retiran con mayor celeridad los artículos fraudulentos. En el anterior artículo publicado en PNAS, se había descubierto que de todas las revistas analizadas, las más influyentes y respetadas como Science y Nature son también las que tienen más artículos anulados por fraude. Este dato, como en la interpretación de la información general sobre plagio, no tiene por qué significar que sus filtros sean burlados con más frecuencia sino todo lo contrario. Además, como resulta obvio, los trabajos publicados en las grandes revistas son sometidos a un escrutinio mucho mayor por muchos más científicos en todo el mundo que en las de menor impacto.
Pese a las explicaciones más o menos optimistas que los autores ofrecen para el aumento del fraude en los últimos años, ellos mismos recuerdan que este fenómeno tiene una presencia importante en la ciencia y es necesario un esfuerzo continuado para reducirlo. Varias encuestas dan motivos para creer que el fraude total es mucho menor que el detectado. En una encuesta entre 163 profesionales de la bioestadística, por ejemplo, el 31% reconoció haber colaborado con un proyecto fraudulento a lo largo de su carrera y un 13% afirmó haber recibido propuestas directas para cometer fraude a lo largo de su carrera. En un metaanálisis de 21 estudios que englobaban las respuestas de 11.647 científicos se concluyó que el 2% de los científicos habían cometido fraude al menos una vez a en su carrera. “Si estas cifras son creíbles, hay muchos más artículos fraudulentos que aún no han sido retirados”, concluyen los autores