Academic Publishing

MDPI and racism

In 2019, MDPI published a Special Issue "Beyond Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability", one year later its owner Shu-Kun Lin expressed admiration for Trump and said "Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. All Lives Matter."

I never had much desire to write about the Basel-based Open Access publisher MDPI, which I personally see as a cheaper and an even less choosier version of Frontiers, another Swiss OA publisher which I already wrote a lot about. Yes, Frontiers published fringe autism theories, psychic lunacies and antivax quackery, they even started to dabble in covidiocies (this recent anti-lockdown paper by Jean-Francois Toussaint is doing serious damage now), but at least no outright racism so far. MDPI however does not hind behind the bushes.

Therefore, in my last article for this dreadful year 2020, I want to introduce you to MDPI’s founder, president and apparent sole owner, Shu-Kun Lin, his unsavoury political views, MDPI’s denials, and the blatant racist pseudoscience dreck authored by the most notorious white supremacists which MDPI published as peer-reviewed research just last year.

Like Frontiers, MDPI was once listed by Jeffrey Beall as potential predatory publisher, but was quickly removed from the list when MDPI deployed lawyers (Frontiers instead succeeded to get Beall’s list completely deleted with Beall losing his job at UC Denver). In 2018, 10 senior editors of a MDPI journal resigned claiming they were coerced into accepting bad papers from paying customers. But nowadays, what with the push for the total Open Access, MDPI is beloved by OA activists, scientists and research institutions alike. The turnaround time from submission to acceptance is record-fast and publication charges range from CHF 1000 to 2200, cheaper than Frontiers. What more do you need? Let’s give these people more reasons to love MDPI, shall we?

MDPI founder Lin was a controversial figure for years already. The recent affair of his political and social views was reported on Twitter by the British journalist Richard Poynder, who specialises in open access scholarly publishing, and also wrote about MDPI controversies when interviewing Lin in 2015.

Trump’s Rule of Law

Some background: in October 2020, Nature openly endorsed Joe Biden for the upcoming US presidential election, NEJM did the same. Biden won, Trump lost (although the fascist president does not concede, claims the election was stolen from him and even considers a military coup). Soon after Biden’s victory became clear, the MDPI president Lin posted this message on 4 December 2020, on a public board (highlights mine):

When Soros Foundation started to support OA publishing, most of the OA journals listed on the Soros Foundation sponsored website were the journals launched and operated by me. I have been working hard to run MDPI to become the largest OA publishing company and one of the 5 largest scholarly journal publishers. I would like to clarify that, as an OA publisher, I admire my colleagues and friends from Elsevier, Springer-Nature, Wiley, Frontiers, and many other companies or organizations who keep the same professional codes and standards of scholarly publishing service.

More broadly, I believe the so-called open society should also follow the rule of law and maintain law and order, like other kind of society. Rule of law is the very foundation of western civilization.

I had a short conversation with the president of the prestigious Swiss university EPFL. I know he does not like Trump and I said perhaps Trump is the man to save the western civilization because Trump has been protecting the social system of rule of law.

It is strange that the media, including scholarly journals (like Nature and NEJM abandons political neutrality and start to create hatred between genders, races, nationalities and perhaps classes, ….

I think people are taken as respectable and honorable or better fit of a good position only because of their merits. Nothing to do with their gender, race, nationality, etc.

I do not think Biden will give more money to support scientists to do research. He will take money from hard working people or tax payers to pay lazy people and there will be less money to distribute as research grants. As a chemist I know the French revolution killed the founder of modern chemistry, a best scientist. This kind of movement in the western countries supported by Biden will be disastrous to all of us. Sad, it becomes politically correct to say, like Nature said, Biden wear the most beautiful clothes. The silent majority, including me, see that the emperor has no clothes.

Now, I do not know if Lin really thinks scientists will be killed under Biden. but the fact is: unarmed Black people were killed by racist police with Trump jeering, refugee LatinX children were put in cages, traumatised forever, many lost their parents, possibly also forever. There are many more crimes and abuses Trump’s regime perpetrated on those who are not white and not rich, it is very unlikely Lin is unaware. Trump’s fascist and racist words and deeds are a known fact, but it seems certain people like Lin see them rather as the Rule of Law. Currently almost 350 thousands US Americans are dead from the COVID-19 pandemic, most of them poor, many Black and LatinX. Because of they poverty, they probably do not fit Lin’s definition of “hard working ” anyway. This is also Trump’s Rule of Law, which serves solely the white rich elite.

Now, Shu-Kun Lin is not just the CEO of MDPI. In an interview with Richard Poynder in 2015, Lin clearly stated to be the sole owner:

RP: As I understand it there are two separate organisations: the MDPI Sustainability Foundation (previously Molecular Diversity Preservation International, which was founded by you and Benoit R Turin in 1996), and MDPI AG, an open access publisher that was spun out of the above organisation by you and Dietrich Rordorf in 2010. Is that correct, and are you saying that you are the sole owner of MDPI AG (i.e. you own 100% of the company and there are no other investors)?
S-K L: That is correct, and currently I am the sole owner of the publishing house.

It seems, the ownership situation remains unchanged today: Lin is still the only authorized signatory at MDPI, other executives have no such authorization. Neither are there any investor-appointed signatories named. Just Lin, all alone. Other board member is a certain Mr Yu Lin, “principal author of 10 publications”, whose main qualification is likely being Shu-Kun Lin’s nephew, in any case, an heir. Then there are Milos Cuculovic (MDPI head of IT, the MDPI billing manager Alexandra Cuculovic is presumably his wife), and Edward Constable, materials science professor at University of Basel, who publishes his research mostly with MDPI. Interestingly, the last MDPI board member is Andreas Schlatter, who just happens to also function as co-director of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). In the Swiss value system, it makes sense that the businesses supervise themselves.

White Lives Matter

That was not the first time that MDPI owner Lin spouted such bigotted views. In June 2020, he commented on the scandal of Thomas Hudlicky, a Canada-based chemistry professor who managed to smuggle his bigotted views against women and minorities as an editorial into the elite journal Angewandte Chemie. It culminated in a withdrawal and deletion of the article, a public statement by the German Society of Chemists (GDCh), removal of two editors and resignation of the entire scientific advisory board of that journal. Of course there were also protests from the other side, here a particularly disgusting example. You can imagine which side Lin was on.

On June 8th, Lin posted this comment:

Too many hypocrites. I do not see any problem with Professor Tomas Hudlicky’s opinion. Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. Shu-Kun

Now, this is a classic racist trope, didn’t Lin know it before writing? He is ethnic Chinese, maybe his definition of “white” is the modern one which means “not Black”.

Black Lives Matter movement began exactly because Black lives are being extinguished by police and even armed white supremacists willy-nilly with little to no consequences. American citizens, male and female, even children, are being shot for entering a shop, for driving a car, for walking a street, for opening their door or for not opening their door, even for sleeping in their own bed, all while Black. Being Black is their only crime, which makes them by default police suspects and potential victims of police violence, sometimes lethal. There is no skin-colour specific danger to white people at all and Lin knows it. In fact, all a white (or any) person has to do to make any random Black person suffer or even die, is to phone the police and point finger. The police will always find some reason to deploy threats, handcuffs, taser or even guns.

Lin’s statement “Black Lives Matter. White Lives Matter. All Lives Matter” conveys that there is no particular discrimination against Blacks, and that whites are just as persecuted as Blacks are, or maybe even more, what with the #BlackLivesMatter riots! The logic in such statements being: Blacks are genetically criminal, if they are shot by the police, they must have deserved it one way or another.

Asked whether that “White Lives Matter” quip was his own or MDPI’s official opinion, Lin clarified:

Strictly my own. Now I regret to write it.

He does not regret having such an opinion though. Lin ended the scandal with an apology where he actually defended that part of his message board post:

I would like to deeply apologize here about the inappropriate message I posted yesterday about Prof. Tomas Hudlicky’s paper retraction from Angewandte Chemie. I am really sorry about the misunderstanding created around my own opinion about diversity and inclusion. In the first part of the message I meant to show my great concern as a publisher that an accepted and published paper (like Prof. Hudlicky’s) was suddenly erased, but at the same time with the second part of my message I wanted to defend the multicultural and gender diversity, and express that all people have to be considered equally.

I would like to make it clear that diversity and inclusion are important values to me and I support them. MDPI is a very multicultural organization and many female employees are promoted to managing positions including on the CEO position. There are over 60% women in managerial positions at MDPI and 20 different nationalities represented in the workforce. I even launched a journal Diversity I have an editorial “Publisher’s Note: Children and Sustainability” when our journal Children was launched, see: where I expressed my own humblethought about racial diversity

However, these comments are my own views and do not represent MDPI’s position. I am sorry if I created confusion or if I offended anyone by writing this short message.

In that editorial he mentioned, Lin said something which sounds very progressive and open minded:

Notably, the black African and Caucasian races in America have started to intermarry and have already produced many children—one of them, a boy called Barack Obama, is the current President of the United States of America.

Yet scientifically, there is no such thing as the “black African” race (you will see below that peer-reviewed MDPI publications claims exactly the opposite), in reality the African ethnic and genetic diversity is in fact much higher than European. Neither is there a “Caucasian” race, which is an invention of the German racist, Johann Blumenbach. The term Caucasian may be popular in USA, but this is because the mighty nation was historically build on violent oppression towards non-white people: the holocaust of Native Americans, the horrors of Black slavery in the South and, Lin may have forgotten, the cruel and racist exploitation of Chinese labourers in the West. There is no such thing as human “races”, although it is nice to know Lin is not generally opposed to interracial marriages.

Also in June 2020, MDPI issued a statement to counteract the damage from Lin’s Hudlicky-related post (for some reason, they want us to think the views of MDPI’s owner have no impact on his business):

Such comments are made by Dr Lin as a private person and do not represent MDPI’s views. We found his message disconcerting and do not approve of it. However, in a subsequent reply Dr. Lin apologized and clarified the misunderstanding while affirming his efforts to foster diversity within the company.

We strongly reject the views expressed in Prof. Hudlicky’s paper.

At MDPI, we are used to working with multicultural and diverse teams representing 20 nationalities based in seven different countries. A majority of MDPI’s employees are female, both at entry level and in managerial roles. We remain committed to providing equal opportunities to employees, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. We also constantly try to promote gender diversity in science in our journals. See some examples here:

Furthermore, we would like to assure everyone who works with us that MDPI, as an international and open access publisher, was founded on the principles of ethnic diversity, gender equality, respect and equal opportunities for all of its members, which is an integral part of our organization’s culture.

Delia Mihaila
Chief Executive Officer
On behalf of the MDPI management team

I have no idea why MDPI keeps on asserting its feminist stance, the “White Lives Matter” statement by its owner Lin had little to do with that. It’s very nice of MDPI to have a female CEO to accompany an all-male board of directors, but anyway: the board, the management team: they are all white, there are no dark-skinned people or those with Muslim names anywhere. Never mind, they did issue a journal named Diversity, where paying customers can share their scholarly insights into that subject also, while making Lin even richer.

Shu-Kun Lin, with MDPI team. Original photo: Richard Poynder.

But now, to another thematic issue, in the MDPI journal Psych, which current Editor-in-Chief is a German psychiatry professor, Thomas Schläpfer, who probably skipped school when the Third Reich was taught. I truly think this collection should have been mentioned in the MDPI diversity statement. In appeared in 2019, behold:

Special Issue “Beyond Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability”

Yes, reader, this collection is as racist as you think it is, or likely much worse. Grab you puke bucket for the content of this collection, hosted by Gregoire Canlorbe, a French writer with no academic affiliation. Yet for MDPI and its President Shu-Kun Lin, Canlorbe proved perfectly qualified, sufficiently appreciative of race IQ studies, racist scholars, Chinese intellectual supremacy (Canlorbe’s own quote: “the Jews of the East“), and Trump’s racist anti-immigration stance (“to reverse the current dysgenic migratory trends in America—formerly known as the “new Europe”“).

Canlorbe seems to specialise in admiringly interviewing various racists, he even got published by the agro-business lobby Genetic Literacy Project, where he interviewed the founder Jon Entine on the evolutionary correlation of colder climate on higher intelligence, Entine parades many unsavoury racist concepts as science facts. I understand that Genetic Literacy logic is: denying the genetic truth of intellectual inferiority of Black people is just as anti-science as denying the truth of glyphosate’s safety. I never liked the Genetic Literacy Project much, but I naively thought it was just industry shilling, never expected racism.

But I digress, now look at this paper from Canlorbe’s MDPI collection, by the Emirates-based Venezuelan scholars Gabriel Andrade and Maria Campo Redondo:

Gabriel Andrade and Maria Campo Redondo Rushton and Jensen’s Work has Parallels with Some Concepts of Race Awareness in Ancient Greece , Psych (2019), doi: 10.3390/psych1010028

Some may recall that the Canadian J Philippe Rushton and the US-American Arthur Jensen (both luckily dead) were unashamed racists who just despised Black people. You cannot exaggerate how racist these two intelligence researchers were. If you are keen to read about their and their fellow IQ racists and eugenicists legacy, I wrote these two articles on the topic, here and here. The MDPI paper celebrates the “landmark work” of Rushton and Jensen, whom it sees as “the most important theoreticians of race differences in the 21st century” and seeks to prove that

ancient Egyptians already had keen awareness of race differences amongst various populations. Likewise, the article documents passages from the Hippocratic and Aristotelian corpus, which attests that already in antiquity, there was a conception that climatic differences had an influence on intelligence, and that these differences eventually become enshrined in fixed biological traits.”

Here the author Andrade tweets his support for the “scientific racism” legacy of the Bell Curve of the US-American Charles Murray:

Feeling nauseous already? Here something from an “Independent researcher” from Quebec, Canada. Peter Frost apparently qualified as MDPI contributor because he spouts various racist ideas and “supports far-right and right-wing populist parties and argues for the white genocide conspiracy theory which he calls “Great Replacement“. His paper in the thematic series was this:

Peter Frost The Original Industrial Revolution. Did Cold Winters Select for Cognitive Ability? Psych (2019) doi: 10.3390/psych1010012

It is as racist as its title suggests:

Rushton and Jensen argued that cognitive ability differs between human populations. But why are such differences expectable? Their answer: as modern humans spread out of Africa and into northern Eurasia, they entered colder and more seasonal climates that selected for the ability to plan ahead, in order to store food, make clothes, and build shelters for winter. […] Over time, these humans would spread south, replacing earlier populations that could less easily exploit the possibilities of the new cultural environment.

No, actually, it’s even more racist than it looked. There seems to be an implied call for Nordic Master races to displace and replace the inferior races, that is, where it hasn’t happened yet. Congratulations to having waved this and other papers in the collection through peer review, Shu-Kun Lin and MDPI!

One of the first tweets by this journal!

There is also Canlorbe’s interview with the ethnic German Gerhard Meisenberg, who is obsessed with racial IQ differences and also once said this about women :

Neither economic development nor the progress of female emancipation or empowerment have been successful at virilizing female achievement levels“.

Meisenberg, who also contributed his own papers to the collection, is a former editor of Mankind Quarterly, which looks like a Nazi Rassenhygiene propaganda outlet, historically founded and financed by actual Nazis of the Pioneer Fund (which also funded Rushton, Jensen and all other academic racists), but as an MDPI reader you are expected to respect this journal and its editors and contributors. The MDPI series includes also a contribution by the misogynous xenophobe Helmut Nyborg from Denmark, who denounced Muslim immigration on eugenics reasons and was eventually found guilty of research misconduct which may explain why he calls himself “retired” from University of Aarhus.

Several papers were contributed by another Dane and “far-right eugenicistEmil Kirkegaard, current domain owner of Mankind Quarterly and publisher of “racist, pseudoscientific bullshit masquerading as legitimate research” in his pseudojournals OpenPsych. Kirkegaard, described by RationaWiki as “a global-warming denier, anti-feminist, ableist, homophobe, Islamophobe, transphobe” who “promoted white supremacy“, was also one of the organisers of racist eugenics conferences with “Neo-Nazi links” at UCL in London, where many MDPI authors discussed here, have participated. Kirkegaard once suggested (in a comment section here) “it is a good idea to legalize child porn. Some studies show that the availability of porn has reduced rape rates” and went even further in a now deleted post from 2012: “a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape.

None of the above disqualified Kirkegaard from contributing not one, but four papers to this MDPI thematic series. His OpenPsych partner and “racist Italian parapsychologist crank who claims to have psychic powers“, Davide Piffer, now sports an academic affiliation with the Department of Biology of the University of Tübingen in Germany (update 30.12.2020: university PR spokesman admitted Piffer was “employed briefly at UT some years ago, not anymore in 2019“), under which he contributed this racist paper:

Davide Piffer Evidence for Recent Polygenic Selection on Educational Attainment and Intelligence Inferred from Gwas Hits: A Replication of Previous Findings Using Recent Data Psych (2019) doi: 10.3390/psych1010005

You can imagine what vile racist eugenics Piffer postulates. Here a figure from his paper, says it all:

Chinese are up there with the white, both on IQ and educational attainment. Peer reviewed by fellow racists!

Another member of that racist team is the “anti-Semitic crank John Fuerst, who “frequently posts anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Facebook” and “spends his time attacking Jewish people on Twitter” (quotes from Rational Wiki, whom Fuerst threatened with defamation lawsuits for quoting his own antisemitic tweets). There are no Jews on the MDPI board, so I guess it’s OK then.

The trio Kirkegaard, Piffer and Fuerst contributed several papers to the MDPI collection, one of their coauthors is the grandfatherly patriarch of academic racism and white supremacy: Richard Lynn, editor, founder and board member of Mankind Quarterly, which is published by Lynn’s invention, the Ulster Institute for Social Research (its fellows are Kirkegaard, Piffer and Fuerst; Nyborg and Meisenberg serve on advisory board). With this affiliation, they contributed this MDPI “study”:

John G. R. Fuerst, Richard Lynn and Emil O. W. Kirkegaard The Effect of Biracial Status and Color on Crystallized Intelligence in the U.S.-Born African–European American Population Psych (2019) doi: 10.3390/psych1010004

Yes, the paper predictably claims to prove that white are the most intelligent, Black are intellectually degenerate and “racially mixed individuals” are somewhere in-between. It concludes:

“these results further substantiate the statistical relation between intelligence and biogeographic ancestry in African and European American populations.”

Lynn, a retired Ulster University professor from Northern Ireland, is worshipped in the racist academic community for having catalogued the IQ worldwide, with the Africans as the least intelligent “race” and Chinese and Europeans as most intelligent “races” on Earth. I am sure MDPI owner Shu-Kun Lin approves of all his writings unconditionally!

Figures and text from Nyborg’s contribution in defence of race studies, referencing Lynn.

Lynn was of course also famously funded by the Nazis of the Pioneer Fund and is one of the last survivors of the old generation of the academic racists and women-haters, but there are many others willing to carry his white supremacy torch, like those fellows of his Ulster Institute. Lynn’s special contribution to the MDPI thematic series was this, where he painted himself a victim from “Attacks from Equalitarians“:

Richard Lynn, Reflections on Sixty-Eight Years of Research on Race and Intelligence Psych (2019), doi: 10.3390/psych1010009

Other authors of the MDPI collection are:

  • the wealthy Scottish aristocrat Michael Woodley of Menie, “a eugenicist and ecologist who first proposed the batshit-crazy spiteful mutant hypothesis“, his theories are extremely racist and misogynous, but too insane to be even comprehended. Canlorbe did an interview with that character, which is part of MDPI collection.
  • the “anti-semite and white supremacistEdward Dutton, a fellow of Lynn’s Ulster Institute, board member of Mankind Quarterly and associate of Kirkegaard and Woodley of Menie. Dutton also hates Muslims who he says have a retarded IQ, disapproves of interracial marriages, and agrees with Rushton that Black men have bigger penises because all these porn films they watched prove it.
  • Japanese eugenicist and Mankind Quarterly board member Kenya Kura, who contributed with Kirkegaard to the MDPI collection a paper on biracial children in postwar Japan, where they failed to find significant differences in IQ between children of Black–Japanese and White–Japanese parents, which the authors then blamed on the genetic degeneracy of the Japanese mothers involved.
  • the Dutch Jan te Nijenhuis, who propagates a “racial hierarchy in intelligence” and whose racist PhD thesis at the University of Amsterdam claimed that Black immigrants in Netherlands had lower IQ than native Dutch. To the MDPI collection, he contributed a study proclaiming the cognitive inferiority of non-white Latin-Americans.

Look at this joint effort:

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Robert L. Williams, John Fuerst and Gerhard Meisenberg Biogeographic Ancestry, Cognitive Ability and Socioeconomic Outcomes, Psych (2019) doi: 10.3390/psych1010001

Here two figures, where authors announce the genetically-enshrined cognitive superiority of the “European and East Asian” race over Blacks and Hispanics:

That was in fact the very first paper Psych published:

You do notice that Chinese like Shu-Kun Lin are again classified as intellectually at least equivalent to the Europeans in the current race theories? Where else to publish this racist garbage but MDPI indeed.

From New Zealand, James Flynn (the inventor of the Flynn effect, he died in December 2020) contributed a paper actually critical of Rushton’s and Lynn’s theories on race and intelligence. Maybe Flynn was mellowing with age, because he used to have no high opinions on women and certain ethnicities and was best mates with Rushton, Lynn, Nyborg, Satoshi Kanazawa and other racists, here visual proof:

J. Philippe Rushton, Helmuth Nyborg, James R. Flynn, Richard Lynn, and Satoshi Kanazawa. Source: Kanazawa..

Actually, why was Kanazawa not invited to contribute to the thematic series, maybe his LSE refused to pay the MDPI publication charges?

To deflect all claims of racism, the MDPI thematic series contained the following “I am not a racist, but” contribution by Noah Carl, who now goes as “Independent Researcher” after he was, according to RationalWiki, “stripped of his fellowship at Cambridge University and sacked from his job, over his publications in OpenPsych and links to far-right extremists, including Emil Kirkegaard“.

Noah Carl The Fallacy of Equating the Hereditarian Hypothesis with Racism Psych (2019) doi: 10.3390/psych1010018

“There is a large amount of evidence that groups differ in average cognitive ability. The hereditarian hypothesis states that these differences are partly or substantially explained by genetics. Despite being a positive claim about the world, this hypothesis is frequently equated with racism, and scholars who defend it are frequently denounced as racists.”

But they are all racists, who all hate Black people and refugee immigrants, all they disagree on is what exactly to do about Jews and Muslims. In this regard, my tip as an actual Jew to Shu-Kun Lin: all this admiration for Chinese cognitive superiority and especially the “Jews of the East” comparisons by Canlorbe and others are not meant as compliments. The old post-WWII generation of racist psychologists, funded by the Nazis of the Pioneer Fund, was very much antisemitic, and the new generation hides it slightly better, but not always (see Dutton). In their world-view, Chinese are the new superintelligent enemy of their own white Aryan master race in the struggle for world domination.

Update: Reader informs me that Psych‘s first Editor-in-Chief in 2019 was a certain “hereditarianism pseudoscientist” Bryan Pesta, who used to sport an academic affiliation with Cleveland State University, where he claimed to have a fictional lab with two fellows: Kirkegaard and Fuerst. Pesta is deep into racial intelligence and published some racist stuff with Kirkegaard, including in Mankind Quarterly. Psych was possibly meant as a successor to their discredited racist sewer OpenPsych, Kirkegaard denies it but claims MDPI specifically invited Pesta to run Psych. Indeed, Pesta was appointed Editor-in-Chief only in April 2019, after several papers in the racist collection were already published. In April 2020, after 7 months utter silence the Psych Twitter account announced the new EiC Schläpfer.

Update 31.12.2020

If you think that racist collection in Psych was a one-off: no. Reader alerted me to the following paper, published in January 2020, which declared Sakha or as Russian call them, Yakuts (an indiginous ethnic group in the Siberian north) to be intellectually inferior to ethnic Russians:

Vladimir Shibaev, Andrei Grigoriev, Ekaterina Valueva and Anatoly Karlin Differential Item Functioning on Raven’s SPM+ Amongst Two Convenience Samples of Yakuts and Russians , Psych(2020) doi: 10.3390/psych2010005

The lead author Anatoly Karlin is a Russian racist or possibly even Neo-Nazi with an affiliation of the Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences. RationalWiki describes him as “a Russian white nationalist and global-warming denialist crank who espouses a bizarre form of anti-environmentalism called “Tropical Hyperborea”, which is “a white ethno-state and he will only grant entrance to “whites from the high-IQ European & Anglosphere countries” who are willing to “culturally Russify“.

Karlin also openly admitsyes, I’m racist and very happy with that“. His Twitter handle is @akarlin88, where he once declared to find 14 year old girls “hot”. Karin was born in 1988, but also 88 is the standard code in racist circles for “Heil Hitler”.

Now, may I humbly suggest that Shu-Kun Lin and his MDPI take their “diversity statements” and shove them up their arses?

And you, dear member of the scientific community, do you mind publishing in such journals? Right, indeed, you are not Black, so why should you care. MDPI is said to provide the best value for money and faster turnaround from submission to acceptance than any other publisher. Off you go, master races, submit your next MDPI paper!

Update 4.02.2021

On 5 January 2021, the Psych EiC Thomas Schläpfer replied to my email, thanked for my vigilance and announced to look into the affair. He did state though:

“I’m not sure, as editor-in-chief, I have retrospective responsibility for decisions made by a previous editorial committee.

Since then, Schläpfer hasn’t written to me, all my follow-up emails to him and his University of Freiburg went unanswered. The racist papers all remain standing, free from even an editorial expression of concern.


If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). I’d like to publish a white supremacy paper in MDPI, too, but it costs!


64 comments on “MDPI and racism

  1. First, you also wrote: “You do notice that Chinese like Shu-Kun Lin” – not clear whether you refer to ethnicity or nationality here (it also does not help that one of the tags of this article is “China”) – you can’t blame me for not knowing what you mean here, if you are not clear about it yourself. Second, you should also know that there is no such thing as “ethnic Chinese”. China consists of hundreds of different ethnic groups (with the Han “ethnic” group being one of them, perhaps you confuse this with being “ethnic Chinese”). Unless Shu-Kun Lin calls himself an “ethnic Han Chinese” or “Swiss”, you can’t decide it for him. Third, you argue that there is no such thing as “black African” race or someone being ethnically Swiss, 100% correct, the same counts for people talking about the “Chinese ethnicity”. Utterly nonsense, objectively speaking it does not exist. As a person of color I have had this discussion million times when people think they have the right to decide what my “ethnicity” is. You are right in calling out this racist nonsense, and I support you in this for 100%, but your ideas on ethnicity are incorrect.


    • Wrong. The first time “Chinese” appears in my article is the quote “He is ethnic Chinese”.
      Then: China is one of the most ethnically homogenous nations on earth, Han are more than 90% of Chinese population. Shu-Kun Lin’s name does not sound Tibetan or Muslim anyway.
      The article is tagged “China” for my readers from China, because even if you insist Lin is Swiss and not Chinese, many in China feel he is one of their own nation.
      I will end this debate because I understand you are hell-bent to expose me as a racist.


      • Well the lesson I learn from you is that having a Chinese ethnicity is a fact. That you end the debate because you think I am calling you a racist is typical and expected, this is often what I hear when I challenge peoples preconceptions on “race”, “ethnicity” or identity. I am simply trying to educate you that talking about Chinese ethnicity is the same as talking about “African race”. These are social constructions. Everyone has racial biases, except for Leonid. We know that now. If you have a Chinese sounding name, it is for a fact that you must be ethnically Chinese. I don’t think you are a racist, you are in defense mode now, but you have a very narrow view on the concept of ethnicity. That’s all from me.


      • Can’t help sharing this video for people claiming “Chinese ethnicity is a fact” or “China is one of the most homogenous countries in the world”. The CCP argues exactly the same: This video perfectly outlines the problems with aforementioned statements.


      • You know, Mustafa, this is getting too silly.
        So I end this debate with a song, which I am sure will find the most offensively racist ever.


      • Leonid: “oh no!!? Shukun mentions African race, such a racist! Dont you know, there is no such thing as race, he must adore these neonazis”. Also Leonid: “this is too silly of course is there such an factual thing as being ethnically Chinese, and Shukun obviously is, look at his name, very Chinese, and China soo very homogenous. Most homogenous country in the world.”.


  2. NMH, the failed scientist and incel

    Oh baby, just you shut your mouth….


  3. Klaas van Dijk

    This blogpost and the comments reminded me about the ugly truth about Yardley (Michael) Yeadon which is listed at and at

    Yardley (Michael) Yeadon is one of the 22 authors of the infamous ‘Corman Drosten review report’, see and for some backgrounds.


  4. Factchecker

    This was an interesting article. However, putting aside the way you brush off Mustafa’s legitimate concerns regarding the way you single out Shu-Kun Lin as Chinese, you should be careful about spreading incorrect information.
    It most certainly does not take three generations to become a Swiss citizen–as pointed out by From Switzerland with Love. If you had taken the time to read the information in the link you provided you would see that this link is for the very unique case of third generation foreigners whose elders did not choose to naturalize. Had you selected the correct tab–in this case ordinary naturalization (available on the left-hand side of the page you provided or, alternatively, here:–you would see that foreigners may apply for Swiss citizenship after as little as 10 years. Again, please factcheck.


  5. Pingback: The impossible Toni Camins – For Better Science

  6. Emil Kirkegaard who has admitted in his own words to looking at child porn recently lost a lawsuit.

    PZ Myers has blogged on it


  7. Pingback: Emil Kirkegaard: RationalWiki – Oliver D. Smith

  8. A legal update, Emil Kirkegaard heavily lost on the provisional assessment of costs:

    Provisional Assessment Hearing


  9. Klaas van Dijk

    Copy pasted from : “The Norwegian system for classifying scientific publishing introduces “level x” for predatory or questionable journals. That means some @MDPIOpenAccess journals such as @Sus_MDPI won’t count for scientific publication points. Some of the issues mentioned are questionable review process, too much focus on speed at the cost of quality, and invitations to review and edit special issues far from the field of the scientists. Also the extreme focus on special issues (40,000 in 2021). I think the addition of level x is reasonable and I’ve heard many horror stories from colleagues about #MDPI publishing practices. Publish preprints and support your society journals instead.”

    Backgrounds at

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: