Schneider Shorts of 4 March 2022 – my Macchiarini reporting passed peer review, scientists in Fascist Russia sanctioned by German funder, St Carlos of Oviedo and fellow crooks wallow in forced apologies, trash science and misconduct slander from elite virologist, MDPI loves antivaxxery, Elsevier loves fossil fuels, Wiley loves papermills, and Smut Clyde loves mushrooms.
Table of Discontent
- A Letter to BMJ – finally, our investigation of Macchiarini’s lies published as peer-reviewed article
Russia / War on Ukraine
- DFG sanctions Russia – German research founder forbids all collaboration with scientists in Fascist Russia
- Lopez-Otin’s revenge – Spain’s patron saint of research fraud gets two apologies, plus fudged data by his admirer Valcarcel
- Andersen the Bully – Wuhan market truther charges Alina Chan with research misconduct
- MDPI Antivaxxers – COVID-19 vaccines turn you into a zombie!
- Evil Elsevier – Great business with Big Oil
- Wiley, a predatory publisher? – actually, even OMICS might have higher standards of ethics.
A Letter to BMJ
A letter to editor regarding the Paolo Macchiarini trachea transplant affair has been published in The BMJ on 2 March 2022.
Leonid Schneider, Patricia Murray, Raphaël Lévy, Peter Wilmshurst, Time to retract Lancet paper on tissue engineered trachea transplants BMJ (2022) doi: 10.1136/bmj.o498
It starts with:
“We call for retraction of the 2008 Lancet article on “clinical transplantation of a tissue-engineered airway” by Macchiarini and colleagues.1 The paper received international media coverage as the “world’s first tissue engineered organ transplant,” and one of the authors, Martin Birchall, told the BBC that “in 20 years’ time, virtually any transplant organ could be made in this way.”2 Reality did not match the hype because nearly all subsequent patients who received “tissue engineered airways” died.3 The Lancet was informed in May 2018 that the key findings of the article were false. Despite this, and subsequent demands for retraction of the paper by us and others, the Lancet has refused to retract, without providing any explanation.”
The authors of this letter are the Liverpool University professor of regenerative medicine Patricia Murray, her colleague (now in France) Raphaël Lévy, and the cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst, legendary whistleblower who once saved countless patient lives by taking on Big Pharma and Harvard elites, and even won in court when sued for libel. The first author is an internet troll who was repeatedly sentenced in Berlin court for uncovering undesired information about Macchiarini’s trachea transplants, the Italian surgeon himself served as key witness. Murray and Levy were harassed and threatened by a London elite law firm engaged by a trachea transplant company which collaborates with UCL.
Here is the list of failed scientists, research fraudsters, liars, crooks and homicidal quacks, doctors and professors, several still very well paid and very powerful even today:
Paolo Macchiarini, Philipp Jungebluth, Tetsuhiko Go, M Adelaide Asnaghi, Louisa E Rees, Tristan A Cogan, Amanda Dodson, Jaume Martorell, Silvia Bellini, Pier Paolo Parnigotto, Sally C Dickinson, Anthony P Hollander, Sara Mantero, Maria Teresa Conconi, Martin A Birchall, Clinical transplantation of a tissue-engineered airway The Lancet (2008) DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61598-6
Macchiarini himself is right now about to stand trial in Sweden’s criminal court for aggravated assault, which concerns his later trachea transplants at the Karolinska Institutet, killings which were made possible by that 2008 alleged success in The Lancet. For the background of this story of Murray’s and Wilmshurst’s year-long struggle to get the fraudulent Macchiarini et al 2008 paper in The Lancet retracted, I invite you to read this article:
The 2008 Lancet (and its 5 year follow-up, also in Lancet, Gonfiotti et al 2014), is about an experimental transplant with a decellulirised graft of a left bronchus Macchiarini performed in Barcelona in 2008. The patient, Claudia Castillo, is one of the rare survivors, almost everyone who received a trachea transplant in Macchiarini’s killing spree, died. Here is an account by one of his Spanish victims, who personally knows Claudia and who escaped a trachea transplant despite Macchiarini’s literal murder threats.
The insane irony: Paloma Cabeza, Claudio Castillo, and Macchiarini himself all live in Barcelona, the Italian surgeon has a huge villa there and a licence to practice surgery in Spain, Italy and Germany (he still proudly holds an adjunct professorship at MHH, Hannover Medical School).
So now our letter was finally published in The BMJ. Let’s see for how longer The Lancet and its editors Richard Horton and Sabine Kleinert will continue defending Macchiarini’s crimes. After all, there is money to be made: despite our combined efforts, Macchiarini’s airway transplant technology is still being pushed for clinical use, mostly by UCL and Videregen.
Russia / War on Ukraine
DFG sanctions Russia
I am deeply grateful to the German Research Foundation (DFG) for taking this step, and hope other research funders will follow. In a press release from 2 March 2022 (translated from German below), DFG announced to stop all kinds of scientific collaboration with researchers in Russia, all funding to Russia to be stopped immediately, no data and material exchange, and no conference visits either way.
“DFG draws consequences from Russian attack on Ukraine
Support for refugee and persecuted scientists / joint funding projects with Russia suspended with immediate effect
The Russian attack on Ukraine also has consequences for the funding activities of the largest research funding organization in Germany and for their scientific cooperation with partners in Russia.
With immediate effect, the German Research Foundation (DFG) is suspending all of its funded research projects between scientists from Germany and Russia. At the same time, funding applications for new German-Russian cooperation and continuation applications for ongoing projects will not be accepted until further notice. With these measures, the DFG is supporting the federal government’s consistent approach to the Russian aggression. At the same time, it is aware of the drastic effects of these measures and deeply regrets them for science.
In concrete terms, no data, samples, devices or other scientific material should be exchanged in the existing cooperation projects with immediate effect. Likewise, no joint events should be held. The financing of the Russian parts of joint projects will be stopped until further notice, the German project shares will continue to be financed.
In total, the DFG has funded more than 300 German-Russian research projects with a total volume of over 110 million euros in its various funding types and programs over the past three years.
For the time being, the DFG will not be accepting applications for new German-Russian funding projects or applications for continuation of existing bilateral projects. In the case of new and follow-up applications that have already been submitted, the assessments as well as the evaluations in the review boards and the decisions in the approval committees are suspended.
Researchers who have currently applied for a scholarship abroad for Ukraine or Russia can change their applications and specify other target countries. Scholarships that have already been approved should not be started. Ongoing grants may be converted to domestic grants or positions; here, too, there is the possibility of moving to another country.
In addition, the DFG offers support to researchers from Ukraine and Russia as part of its initiative for refugee researchers. The aim is to enable the refugees to continue their academic work with short-term integration into the German academic system. In this way, the DFG is also underscoring its solidarity with scientists from Ukraine who have had to leave their homeland as a result of the Russian attack. However, support is also available to Russian scientists who are forced to flee in the current situation.
At the end of last week, the DFG, together with the other members of the Alliance of Science Organizations in Germany, had condemned the Russian attack as violating international law and expressed their solidarity with their scientific partners.
Here is DFG’s earlier press statement of condemnation.
If you think it’s wrong to punish Russian scientists for their fascist country’s war crimes and genocide – I strongly disagree. Science is always political. Also: mobility is what generally professionally expected from academics. Scientists in Fascist Russia can just leave their murderous state. Too cumbersome, they say? Think of what their Ukrainian peers and their families are going through.
Слава Україні! Героям слава!
Remember the Spanish research cheater Carlos Lopez-Otin? My readers’ sleuthing and my reporting brought down this former titan of Spanish cancer and ageing research. 9 of his papers were retracted for fraud, more manipulations in other papers were found, Lopez-Otin even lost the Nature mentoring award.
As his entire body of work, stretching for several decades, was questioned, Lopez-Otin destroyed his entire transgenic mouse colony on the pretence of a viral infection, and then temporally fled to hide with his Paris friend and fellow research cheater, Guido Kroemer.
At all times, Spanish media was on Lopez-Otin’s side, a huge support campaign among his peers was deployed to bully the international community, eventually the mouse murderer triumphantly returned to his University of Oviedo.
Now, another victory for Spain’s martyr saint. Two science bloggers were made to apologise, in public. Probably inspired by the public confessions made under threats and torture in fascist Russia and fascist Belarus.
But of course the two Spanish bloggers were not abducted and tortured, they and their family members not threatened with death, Spain is a civilised country after all. I can only explain this with a possible lawsuits Lopez-Otin brought against the bloggers (and probably many other people in Spain). In any case, Spanish media is celebrating, one local newspaper reports:
“The tortuous road that Carlos López-Otín , one of the most prestigious researchers at the University of Oviedo , has suffered in recent years , is beginning to see the light. After the academy called several professors to testify last November for an alleged case of harassment towards him and his environment , this week he has received public apologies from two scientists and science popularisers for having questioned his figure during the controversy that afflicted when he had to retract several articles published in the American Journal of Biological Chemistry after duplicate images and reused experiments were detected.
In his blog, The Science of the Francis Mule , Francis r. Villaroto acknowledges that he regrets having published very critical content at the time and points out that «being a question that refers to a person, at the time I should have contacted him to clarify the details; I should never have trusted the information that was published about his case in different media». The researcher points out that he had a personal conversation with Otín in which he clarified many of the points of the controversy that followed the withdrawal of the articles and «he presented me with a series of reasons, all of a confidential nature, which in his opinion were behind of the withdrawal of its articles; These reasons are not of a scientific nature and they can be qualified as scientific harassment . I don’t like that things like that happen in magazines like JBC or NCB; but I dislike much more that my piece was used as an asset in the subsequent harassment of López-Otín. Especially when beyond the withdrawal of the articles, the intra-history of the case of harassment of López-Otín is very tragic; one day it will have to be told ».
In similar terms, and in his publication, Ciencia Mundana , Alfredo Caro Maldonado , points out that “I had let myself be swept away by the wave without reflecting much on the consequences that my words could have or their potential virality” and regrets having written his initial article without having spoken to Otín and roughly and in a hurry.”
This is the evidence of the “scientific harassment“, I presume:
Here are the two grovelling blogs, by Villaroto and by Caro Maldonado. Guys, I also faced lawsuits and court trials, much, much worse than you two pathetic wusses, I also deleted some articles, but I never agreed to apologise in public and there is no law which can force you to do that. Aren’t you ashamed to look at yourself in the mirror? Lopez-Otin a victim of harassment, really? Get lost.
You want to know what harassment is, you two chickenshits? Here, another local newspaper:
“The University of Oviedo has confirmed to Nortes that an “alleged case of harassment of the figure of Carlos López Otín and his entourage” is in the process of being investigated, although it has not provided further details in this regard. This is an internal procedure that is initiated after the opening of a file on one or more members of the academic institution if it is suspected that they may have committed any conduct punishable by the university. From what Nortes has learned, several university professors are testifying in this first phase of the process.”
These scientists are apparently charged with a conspiracy against Lopez-Otin, who seems to also accuse them of smuggling a virus into his mouse facility:
““One day they tell us that there is a virus infection in the animal facility, created and built by us, and the only way to stop it is to kill all the mice. The next day we were left with nothing” , declared Otín in 2019 to El Confidencial .
He himself has said on other occasions that it was “a boycott” whose leaders were “two or four individuals” and that “it could not have been something casual.” He has also denounced having been the victim of a “workplace harassment” campaign that became “unbearable”.”
Spanish elites celebrate their victory and their hero. Another local newspaper writes:
“I feel very satisfied and I am pleased that some of the mistakes made with Carlos López-Otín , who was subjected to an undeserved and unfair campaign of disrepute, are recognized.” This is how the rector of the University of Oviedo, Ignacio Villaverde , spoke yesterday, to questions from this newspaper, in reference to the two scientific disseminators who have just publicly expressed their apologies to López-Otín , professor of Molecular Biology at the University Oviedo, for the criticism they dedicated to it in 2019. […]
The public statements of Maldonado and Villatoro, authors of two blogs, have also been favorably assessed by Juan Valcárcel, a scientist at the Center for Genomic Regulation in Barcelona. In 2018, Valcárcel voluntarily assumed the search for support for López-Otín among a large group of Spanish scientists, and some foreigners, who sent a letter to the editors of the JBC magazine in which they defended that a series of articles of the group of Otín were corrected, but not withdrawn, considering that “the errors detected do not affect any essential result”.
According to Juan Valcárcel, the apologies released now “honor these researchers and popularizers, who thus do an important service to the scientific community and its perception by society.”
Valcarcel is the dude who also whitewashed the Barcelona zombie scientist Maria Pia Cosma and of course he also published manipulated data in his own papers.
Here for example, are some stealthily and irregularly spliced gels which raises suspicions how reliable this entire study from Valcarcel’s lab is:
Another spliced gel, the gel background pattern suggests the two halves were obtained with different exposure, making the figure more than suspicious:
Another such stealthy splice:
Patrik Förch , Livia Merendino , Concepción Martínez , Juan Valcárcel U2 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein particle (snRNP) auxiliary factor of 65 kDa, U2AF65, can promote U1 snRNP recruitment to 5′ splice sites Biochemical Journal (2003) doi: 10.1042/bj20021202
A completely fake gel, whoever did that is a research fraudster:
Feel free to check more Varcarcel papers, because this bigwig professor doesn’t know how to even spell “ethics”.
But whatever Spanish science elites do to save their St Carlos of Oviedo – all these misconduct trials against his peer critics, all these lawsuits, all these public apologies, all this faecal effluence of celebratory media reporting: outside of Spain, everyone knows Lopez-Otin is a toxic cheater who forged data over decades and when caught, killed 5000 mice, most obviously to destroy evidence. Nobody half-way honest will touch your sleazy hero with a barge pole, this is exactly why he is still harassing his critics. All Spanish scientists supporting him are likely research fraudsters themselves, every single one of the signatories is suspect, and this is exactly why they must defend Lopez-Otin’s fraud, or face scrutiny themselves.
My message to Lopez-Otin, Villaverde, Valcarcel et al: continue quacking in your toxic swamp and sniffing each other’s farts. You might have bullied two Spanish bloggers into a grovelling apology, but the rest of us sends you a two-fingered salute. Go scare your grandmothers, you failed scientists.
Andersen the Bully
Speaking of bullies. You all read the news headlines: the lab leak theory of COVID-19 proven wrong once and for all. Science has spoken: the pandemic started at the Wuhan wet market, everyone who still discusses the lab leak theory is worse than Trump.
Here is the preprint:
Michael Worobey; Joshua I. Levy; Lorena M. Malpica Serrano; Alexander Crits-Christoph; Jonathan E. Pekar; Stephen A. Goldstein; Angela L. Rasmussen; Moritz U. G. Kraemer; Chris Newman; Marion P. G. Koopmans; Marc A. Suchard; Joel O. Wertheim; Philippe Lemey; David L. Robertson; Robert F. Garry; Edward C. Holmes; Andrew Rambaut; Kristian G. Andersen The Huanan market was the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 emergence Zenodo (2022). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6299116
It states authoritatively:
“Geographical clustering of the earliest known COVID-19 cases and the proximity of positive environmental samples to live-animal vendors suggest that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the site of origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
As a reminder, the preprint’s last author is the the Scripps virology professor Kristian Andersen, who has been always one of the fiercest public critics of the lab leak theory, ad hominem attacks on its proponents like the MIT postdoc Alina Chan gratuitously included. You will see some more of his bullying in a moment.
Andersen and his preprint co-authors Rambault, Holmes and Garry warned already in March 2020 a Nature paper Andersen et al 2020 against engaging in a lab leak debate:
“It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. […] Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.“
Other co-authors of the new Zenodo preprint are Angela Rasmussen who made it her personal duty to viciously insult every lab leak proponent as an anti-Chinese racist and worse, and Marion Koopmans, who was a member of Peter Daszak led WHO-China travelling circus which declared frozen fish from Europe as a possible COVID-19 source. The first author Michael Worobey once joined others in Science calling for the lab leak theory to be investigated, but then he figured out which side his bread is buttered and became a Wuhan wet market truther.
Basically, this preprint is the product of the combined intelligence of the biggest geniuses of virology worldwide. It cannot be more authoritative, more scientifically unassailable. Right?
Yet these elite professors don’t understand basic maths. Or rather they do, they just prefer to fudge data, and to use their status and authority to silence any discussion. But Alina is not afraid, she tweeted:
“The figure currently being featured in the @nytimes only shows the locational distribution of the number of positive samples. However, even elementary school children should know to ask for the denominator. We know that sampling was not even across the market.
I hope it makes sense that if you sample one stall 100 times, you shouldn’t be shocked to find more positives there compared to another stall that you only sampled 10 times.
I’m a bit surprised that this basic principle failed to be grasped by the eminent scientists on the authorship of the preprint. One can only hope that peer reviewers at top journals will catch this.
If a high school or undergraduate researcher had produced this figure for me, I would’ve asked them immediately to go back and remake it after normalizing for the number of samples taken per stall.
And if the researcher told me that they don’t know how many samples were taken per stall, then I would tell them that they cannot make a figure like this. It would be ultimately misleading and unscientific to present incomplete data.
Indeed, a student doing this kind of analysis would be failed. But these scientific elites are allowed to do the things they fail their students for, and they are celebrated as the heroes by all media worldwide, heroes who found the REAL origin of COVID-19. This garbage pseudoscience is apparently even more important that Russia’s war on Ukraine, as Alina noticed.
Now if you are disgusted by our scholarly elites, I have the promised cherry on the top. Alina alerted in a Tweet the editors of Science of the preprint’s shortcomings, well aware that it was about to pass the peer review either there or at Nature with flying colours.
How do you think did Andersen react? He tweeted:
Well, if someone has a clear COI, it’s Andersen himself. Also otherwise, he reacted as a typical academic bully. You see, there is a time-honed tradition in academia that whenever someone weaker that you dares to criticise your science, you immediately report them for research misconduct (no need to search, see Lopez-Otin’s case above).
You can safely assume that Anderson not just tweeted his outrageous accusation, but he also must have contacted Chan’s employer, the Broad Institute. They all do this, expecting their critics to be sacked or at least severely punished. This is so boringly common in academia, go try for yourself, criticise a bigwig’s paper, see how swiftly you’ll find yourself facing a research misconduct committee and a sack. No mercy with whistleblowers.
Andersen’s and Rasmussen’s bullying of Alina Chan on Twitter are legendary. And still, she is not afraid. But now we also know what failed scientists these elites really are.
Speaking of academic bullies, look what insane antivaxxer trash Didier Raoult is endorsing:
This is the paper from the Lund University in Sweden, published unsurprisingly in MDPI:
Markus Aldén, Francisko Olofsson Falla, Daowei Yang, Mohammad Barghouth, Cheng Luan, Magnus Rasmussen, and Yang De Marinis. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line Current Issues in Molecular Biology (2022) doi: 10.3390/cimb44030073
It claims to prove BionTech COVID-19 vaccine integrates into your DNA, permanently genetically transforming ALL organs, including ovaries and testes, and is likely to be passed on to foetus during pregnancy:
“Preclinical studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, showed reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection. Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells. In this study, we investigated the effect of BNT162b2 on the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. […] Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
Basically, you become a COVID-19 zombie. The referenced article is to a long debunked study by Rudolph Jaenisch which never passed proper peer review:
Grand claims require grand evidence, this is why this MDPI study passed peer reviewed is just one day: “Received: 18 January 2022 / Revised: 19 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022“.
I do understand that MDPI is on a race to the bottom, ethics-wise.
Elsevier really is trying everything to be recognised as the most evil scientific publisher of all.
“Elsevier, a Dutch company behind many renowned peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Lancet and Global Environmental Change, is also one of the top publishers of books aimed at expanding fossil fuel production.
For more than a decade, the company has supported the energy industry’s efforts to optimize oil and gas extraction. It commissions authors, editors and journal advisory board members who are employees at top oil firms.Elsevier also markets some of its research portals and data services directly to the oil and gas industry to help “increase the odds of exploration success”.
Several former and current employees say that for the past year, dozens of workers have spoken out internally and at company-wide town halls to urge Elsevier to reconsider its relationship with the fossil fuel industry.
“When I first started, I heard a lot about the company’s climate commitments,” said a former Elsevier journal editor who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity. “Eventually I just realized it was all marketing, which is really upsetting because Elsevier has published all the research it needs to know exactly what to do if it wants to make a meaningful difference.””
The article was written before Russia’s war on Ukraine began, a war exclusively made possible by our dependence on fossil fuels, with every Russo-Fascist rocket, plane, tank and warship paid for by the west (especially Europe), via oil and gas revenues. Every bombed house, hospital, kindergarten, birth clinic and ambulance, every single single civilian tragedy in Ukraine has been 100% financed by our ongoing gas and oil purchases from Fascist Russia. Ukrainian suffering will forever be on our conscience for refusing to divest from fossil fuels.
But Elsevier does not feel bad about their practice at all, in fact they feel they are actually saving the planet, and they are not alone:
“Elsevier and its parent company, RELX, say they are committed to supporting the fossil fuel industry as it transitions toward clean energy. […]
Elsevier is not alone in navigating relationships with both climate researchers and fossil fuel executives. Multiple other publishers of peer-reviewed climate research have signed on to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals Publishers Compact while also partnering with the oil and gas industry in various ways.
The UK-based publisher Taylor & Francis, for example, signed the UN pledge and released its own net-zero commitments while also touting its publishing partnership with “industry leader” ExxonMobil, the oil company most linked to obstructionism on climate in the public consciousness. Another top climate publisher, Wiley, also signed on to the sustainability compact while publishing multiple books and journals aimed at helping the industry find and drill for more oil and gas.”
The business of scholarly publishing and ethics are incompatible.
Wiley, a predatory publisher?
Something strange happened to Wiley in the last year or two. This once rather respectable and half-way ethical global publishing giant from Germany is now competing with Elsevier to the race to the bottom of publishing ethics.
Look at this Chinese papermill product Smut Clyde and Elisabeth Bik reported already in early 2020. It appeared in a Wiley journal with an impact factor of 6 and a chief editor at Tufts University, USA, Angelo Azzi.
Hui Ma , Wei Cao , Meili Ding MicroRNA‐31 weakens cisplatin resistance of medulloblastoma cells via NF‐κB and PI3K/AKT pathways BioFactors (2020) doi: 10.1002/biof.1616
This western blot figure is entirely fictional: all bands were digitally generated and then pasted onto the same identical background. A western blot figure cannot get faker than this, well, not even if you draw the bands with a felt-tip pen on a Wiley executive’s computer screen.
Guess what Wiley decided though? A sleuth reports “the reply from the publisher” on PubPeer:
“Hi, the journal reviewed 16 papers. 7 showed potential irregularities. Investigations showed that image manipulation had taken place but was confined to normalizing background & didn’t alter intensity of the bands. The data remain reliable & we view the matter closed.”
No, wait, it gets better. Or worse, actually.
Another PubPeer sleuth, a certain Hoya camphorifolia, reminded of a public announcement from 17 December 2021, by the Jining First People’s Hospital where the “authors” of this papermill fabrication are employed (highlights mine):
“In order to strengthen the construction of scientific research integrity, severely punish violations, and create a good environment for scientific and technological innovation, the relevant paper issues recently investigated and dealt with by this unit are hereby notified as follows.
- The paper “MicroRNA-31 weakens cisplatin resistance of medulloblastoma cells via NF-κB and PI3K/AKT pathways”, published by Ding Meili as the corresponding author, Ma Hui as the first author, and Cao Wei as the co-first author, has been investigated. , there is academic misconduct of tampering with data. The relevant responsible persons are dealt with as follows: Ding Meili (corresponding author): Cancellation of application qualifications for scientific research projects, scientific research awards, scientific and technological achievements, scientific and technological talent plans within 5 years; cancellation of 5 years as nominee or recommender, nominated or recommender, review Experts and other qualifications; cancel their membership or membership in academic institutions such as societies and associations; postpone promotion to a higher-level professional and technical position for one year; order to contact the magazine as soon as possible to withdraw the manuscript; administrative warning. Ma Hui (first author, merged with 2 other papers): Cancellation of application qualifications for scientific research projects, scientific research awards, scientific and technological achievements, scientific and technological talent plans within 6 years; cancellation of 6 years as a nominee or recommender, nominee or recommender, Review experts and other qualifications; cancel their membership or membership in academic institutions such as societies and associations; revoke the higher-level professional and technical positions that they have obtained; postpone promotion to higher-level professional and technical positions for 4 years; administrative warning. Cao Wei (tied as the first author): Cancellation of application qualifications for scientific research projects, scientific research awards, scientific and technological achievements, scientific and technological talent plans within 5 years; Membership or membership of academic institutions such as societies, associations, etc. that have been obtained; revocation of relevant academic awards and honorary titles obtained through the use of thesis; postponement of employment for one-year high-level professional and technical positions; warning from the party.”
Now you tell me: how screwed-up is Wiley and if this is not the worst kind of predatory publisher attitude, what is it then?
News in Tweets
- Derek Lowe blogs about fake science in “peer-reviewed” journals, under the headline “How Much Published Crap Will We Put Up With?“: “But if we’re talking about trash, let’s revisit the smouldering pile of it produced by “Alireza Heidari”. I wrote about this situation a few years ago – in short, that’s a pseudonym for a guy in Irvine who has published scores of completely faked papers, all of which basically cite only his other faked papers. And he lists his affiliation as the nonexistant “California South University” whose website is another pile of fakery. […] None of it stands up to thirty seconds of actual scrutiny; your foot goes through the floorboards immediately. People have been writing about this idiocy for years, and it should be nothing more than a punchline now. You’d think. But “Heidari” continues to publish away…“
- Elisabeth Bik must eventually understand that scholarly publishers make magnitudes more money with fraud than with actual science. They won’t retract fake papers, just like a pub owner won’t kick out paying alcoholics.
- Remember that idiotic creationist paper Bunch et al 2021 in Scientific Reports which tried to attribute ancient meteorite strikes to Wrath of God, recorded in the Bible? Which, as Bik discovered, also contained digitally falsified images (read here)? Well, it got a mega-correction now, with all stolen images declared, even competing interests section was added! Conclusions about Sodom and Gomorrah unaffected.
- So when are Raoult’s IHU stooges are coming after us? Michel Drancourt‘s cretinous threat from a year ago reiterated: “A complaint was filed and an investigation opened to the Marseille prosecutor’s office for cyberbullying, attempted blackmail and extortion against the PUBPEER site and the identified perpetrators. These comments only represent opinions or misinterpretations of ethical procedures or publication procedures and are sometimes even libelous and insulting. These comments on Pubpeer will therefore not be answered, the authors of which cannot legally claim the protective status of whistleblower.“
- Finally, in case you wondered what Smut Clyde looks like: he is a fairy-tale gnome armed with a magic mushroom.
I thank all my donors for supporting my journalism. You can be one of them!
Make a one-time donation:
I thank all my donors for supporting my journalism. You can be one of them!
Make a monthly donation:
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.DonateDonate monthly