Schneider Shorts 14.11.2025 – Having all these women around makes it more fun for the men
Schneider Shorts 14.11.2025 - undead vampire is dead, Harvard researcher laments grant loss, BMJ concerned about having been duped, with another Italian cheater, a rascist identity thief, a Hungarian multi-professor, and finally, how Springer Nature and Elsevier fight papermill fraud!
Schneider Shorts of 14 November 2025 – undead vampire is dead, Harvard researcher laments grant loss, BMJ concerned about having been duped, with another Italian cheater, a rascist identity thief, a Hungarian multi-professor, and finally, how Springer Nature and Elsevier fight papermill fraud!
Having all these women around makes it more fun for the men
James Watson is finally dead, meaning he was not an actual vampire after all. The toxic racist, women-hater, homophobe, bully and antisemite died on 6 November 2025 aged 97.
White Anglo-Saxon men are clamouring to explain that he was actually a great science genius, despite some mean things he said. They teach you to separate the science from the personality of the scientist.
Well, Watson was a bad scientist also. And he is certainly not the only Nobel laureate who got awarded for someone else’s discovery. He is just the most notorious.
A lot has been written about Watson and how he got his Nobel Prize in 1962 for the discovery of the DNA double helix structure. At the centre was the X-ray data Watson and his co-awardee Maurice Wilkins stole from Rosalind Franklin (here is one account, based on Howard Markel’s book, “The Secret of Life“). The third awardee, Francis Crick, likely knew of the theft, and did nothing. Franklin never got to defend herself because she died of cancer in 1958 (aged only 38), while Watson went on to insult and ridicule her after her death, especially in his celebrated book from 1968, “The Double Helix“, quote:
“I suspect that in the beginning Maurice hoped that Rosy would calm down. Yet mere inspection suggested that she would not easily bend. By choice she did not emphasize her feminine qualities. Though her features were strong, she was not unattractive and might have been quite stunning had she taken even a mild interest in clothes. This she did not. There was never lipstick to contrast with her straight black hair, while at the age of thirty-one her dresses showed all the imagination of English blue-stocking adolescents. So it was quite easy to imagine her the product of an unsatisfied mother who unduly stressed the desirability of professional careers that could save bright girls from marriages to dull men.”
Now, after Watson himself finally died, his fans in science return again to explain to you again that Franklin never did anything of value and Watson discovered everything all by himself.
Another point Watson’s fans make is that even without Franklin’s X-ray photo kerfuffle, he was a great geneticist. Ok, let’s admire what Watson delivered after he became rich, famous and director of the Cold Spring Harbor Labs (CSHL) in USA.
Science writer Sharon Begley prepared an obituary for Watson just before she herself died aged 64 in January 2021, this obituary was now published by STAT:
“One formative influence was Watson’s making his one and only important scientific discovery when he was only 25. His next act flopped. Although “Watson’s [Harvard] lab was clearly the most exciting place in the world in molecular biology,” geneticist Richard Burgess, one of Watson’s graduate students, told the oral history, he discovered nothing afterward, even as colleagues were cracking the genetic code or deciphering how DNA is translated into the molecules that make cells (and life) work.”
But then again, Watson’s real achievements in genetics lie somewhere else. He became obsessed with race eugenics and inspired generations of racists and sexists in science. If such views were publicly shared by a Nobel Prize laureate, they must be scientifically founded, no?
Some geneticists have very unorthodox ideas. These might sound like racism or eugenics to simple folks, but it is really high science. UK Biobank is apparently on board.
Here are examples of Watson’s vile ideology from Begley’s article in STAT:
“It started in 2007, when Watson told a British newspaper that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” Moreover, he continued, although one might wish that all humans had an equal genetic endowment of intelligence, “people who have to deal with Black employees find this not true.” […]
He had made the same claim in his 2007 memoir, “Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science”: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically,” Watson wrote. “Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” As for women, he wrote: “Anyone sincerely interested in understanding the imbalance in the representation of men and women in science must reasonably be prepared at least to consider the extent to which nature may figure, even with the clear evidence that nurture is strongly implicated.” […]
In the 1990s, Watson became smitten with “The Bell Curve,” the 1994 book that argued for a genetics-based theory of intelligence (with African Americans having less of it) and spoke often with its co-author, conservative political scholar Charles Murray.”
Outright racism and misogyny became rare in academia, eugenics and bigotry lurk these days not in Mankind Quarterly but in respected journals, wrapped in fancy genetics and neuroscience. Meet one of the last of the old school racist IQ psychologists, Satoshi Kanazawa.
Watson was supposed to be a genius of genetics, yet he firmly rejected all genetic evidence and instead firmly believed that humanity is divided in races, and that whites are the intellectually superior master race due to their superior white genes. He also believed that women were intellectually inferior, that LGBT people had no right to exist, and that Jews were inherently evil, and he argued for all this with what he claimed was irrefutable fact-based biology. How is this not a disqualifier for someone to run a lab, never mind a major research institute?
For more of that, there is a 2019 article in Vox on Watson’s racism and misogyny, and his quotes which Lior Pachtercollated in 2014:
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.”
Watson’s own words considered, it is very likely that the CSHL director was a boss from hell: sadist, bully, sexist, homophobe and most of all openly racist, in his own words apparently also a sexual predator. Will nobody ever ask what happened to all these women whom Watson employed based primarily on his personal sexual preferences?
We might never know how many good scientists of different genders and ethnicities Watson literally destroyed, but there must be many.
Science Elites
Prevent the cancer
As you know, Trump is extorting US universities by withholding federal funding. Harvard so far refuses to cave in, but sometimes it is difficult to support Harvard’s fight against Trump’s dictatorship.
CBS News made an interview for “60 Minutes” with the Harvard researchers, it was aired on 9 November 2025. One of the Harvard interviewees was the racist eugenicist Steven Pinker (read about him in June 2025 Shorts). The psychology professor complained that “Harvard has not done enough to ensure a wide range of opinions being represented on campus” and that “there should be more voices on the right at Harvard“. Probably also book burnings and torch marches.
Harvard researcher Joan Brugge says her work has the potential to prevent breast cancer, but she was notified last spring that her federal funding was terminated. “It was just like a gut punch. My knees buckled, and I had to sit down,” she says. pic.twitter.com/WrIzR5rRPI
Also interviewed was the Ludwig Center director Joan Brugge, here her key quote:
“My research has the potential to prevent their daughters, and their wives, and their cousins from developing breast cancer, and I don’t think any taxpayer would want to interfere with progress on a project like that.”
The occasion being the termination of two of Brugge’s NIH grants:
“It was just like a gut punch. My knees buckled and I had to sit down, because I– I just never imagined that research focused on a disease like cancer would be canceled for a reason that was unrelated to the quality of the research, or the progress of the research, but this was across the board for issues relating to diversity and antisemitism at Harvard. […]
“our progress has been significantly affected. Now, I’m spending most of my time ringing doorbells to find alternate funding so that we can keep the lab going.”
Indeed, take the funds away from DEi people, but not from whites like Brugge! She works to “prevent the cancer“!
One of such cancer research papers from Brugge’s lab (Gunawardane et al 2005) was briefly mentioned in the article below, because its penultimate author was Harvard Medical School Dean George Q Daley:
Here is Brugge again with Gray, and with the Dutch researcher Jos Jonkers who also has more on PubPeer. originally flagged by the pseudonymous sleuth Claire Francis in 2017, and followed up by Kevin Patrick in 2024:
Actinopolyspora biskrensis : “Three lanes of the IB: RSK1 and IB: RSK2 gel strips in Figure 6C appear to be the same, flipped horizontally (outlined in red, shown with red arrows for direction). In addition two lanes of the IB: RSK1 in Figure 4D seem to overlap with the IB: RSK1 and IB: RSK2 gel strips in Figure 6C (outlined in cyan, shown with cyan arrows for direction).”
Here is what Brugge corrected, with the cheater Gordon Mills:
“The Research Article […] contained errors in Figs. 6B and 8E and in the caption for Fig. 6H. In Fig. 6B, the Western blot for FOXO3a mistakenly showed the blot for BIM overexpression. The Fig. 6H caption incorrectly listed the drug concentrations used for HOC1 and HOC7 cells. In Fig. 8E, the CD31 vehicle immunohistochemistry image was not at the same scale as the other CD31 images, and the correct CD31 vehicle image was mistakenly labeled as the CD31 GSK image. All of these errors have been corrected, and the other data and conclusions are not affected.”
Here is Brugge again with Mills and with the sacked sexual harasser David Sabatini:
Yong‐Chang Zhou: “S3a-12 and S3a-8 are suspected of duplicate image usage, but they represent clearly different experimental results.” (Fig S3a)
Brugge also published with the greatest of all biomedical cheaters, Guido Kroemer, the first author is the whitewashed Swedish cheater Helin Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg.
The study recycled data from Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg’s earlier paper:
Helin Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg, Minsu Kim, Hong-guang Xia, Marcin P. Iwanicki, Dimitry Ofengeim, Jonathan L. Coloff, Lifeng Pan, Tan A. Ince , Guido Kroemer, Joan S. Brugge, Junying Yuan Chaperone-mediated autophagy degrades mutant p53Genes & Development (2013) doi: 10.1101/gad.220897.113
In 2017 the Karolinska Institutet declared Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg to be an innocent and wrongly maligned angel, this G&D paper was saved with a Corrigendum in 2016:
“In the above-mentioned article, it has come to the authors’ attention that, during the preparation of Figure 5C and Supplemental Figure S2C for the final version of this article, the authors unintentionally assembled incorrect tubulin immunoblots due to similarities in the markings or names, such as FLT3 versus FT, between two similar experiments. The amended versions of these figures are shown below. Neither the quantitative determinations nor the conclusions of this article are altered. The authors apologize for these errors.”
My humble opinion that Brugge lab’s defunding is not such a big loss for cancer research. The money would be better invested into studying structural racism in US medicine.
Scholarly Publishing
An auditable replacement dataset has been prepared
BMJ issued an Expression of Concern for that fraudulent PREVENT-TAHA8 phase 3 clinical trial from Iran, which claimed that umbilical cord cells can cure heart attacks. It is clear that the trial never happened at least as described. My guess it is was fabricated by Iranian regime-run papermills based on some available clincial data which may or may not be related to the described quack therapies. Read here:
“Patients with weak heart function who receive stem cell therapy shortly after a heart attack are at lower risk of developing heart failure and related hospital stays compared with standard care, finds a clinical trial published by The BMJ today.”
There are now countless criticisms on PubPeer, all proving how utterly fake this clinical paper is. The whistleblower Peter Wilmshurst, who is also “a cardiologist with significant experience of coronary interventions and treatment of patients with heart failure,” also chimed in to debunk this study. He also criticised the methodology of cell injection into the heart:
“That is a recipe for cardiac arrest“
Thus let’s hope the trial is indeed completely made up, and not forged from the data of dead patients. The Expression of Concern from 12 November 2025 goes:
“The BMJ was alerted to post-publication discussion raising concerns about a variety of issues; some issues were apparent from the data that support the paper, and are linked to from the article. Examples of the issues identified include irregularities in the data, concern about the inclusion of participants who did not meet the age criteria specified in the study, and concerns about undeclared conflicts of interest and authorship.
Reason for expressing concern
The editors judge that the trial may have breached accepted practices and that the results may not be reliable.
Further actions
The BMJ’s content integrity team will take up the concerns with the authors, and investigate fully—involving institutions and regulatory authorities as necessary. The authors have informed the journal that an auditable replacement dataset has been prepared and will be made available to The BMJ. The BMJ will update this notice and make a decision about what post-publication change to the content is needed.”
Right, they are fabricating a new dataset now.
I wrote about the lead authors in my article, but readers alerted me to another clown on board of that paper. Yahya Kiwan has a business selling “fellowships” for regmed cardiology:
“The Kiwan Cardiac Regenerative Medicine Fellowship (KCRMF) is a world-first, cutting-edge training program dedicated to advancing the science and clinical practice of cardiac regenerative medicine.
Led by Dr. Yahya Kiwan, an internationally acclaimed interventional cardiologist and regenerative medicine expert, this fellowship equips physicians with the latest knowledge and practical skills to transform cardiac care through innovative regenerative therapies.
Officially recognized by the American Board of Regenerative Medicine (ABRM), the program combines extensive online learning with an in-person clinical review and certification exam held in Dubai.”
This American Board of Regenerative Medicine is dodgy at best, no wonder the cheater Carlos Cordon-Cardo is part of it. The fellowship costs $7000, plus $100 registration, teachers include Armin Attar, the first author of the BMJ paper. You get some PDFs and recorded lectures, then there is an exam which you probably can only fail by not paying. At the end, you get a diploma like this:
The original article has been corrected
Springer Nature corrected a paper. And erased evidence so that nobody can come back complaining.
It is likely a Chinese papermill product, which should have been rejected simply for being unethical because the authors (led by the Vice president of Wenzhou Medical University Sheng‐wei Jin) claimed to have used the banned anaesthetic chloral hydrate on mice. But presumably because the penultimate author Fang Gao Smith is Professor of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain (sic!) at the University of Birmingham in UK, this fabrication instead passed peer review in a medical journal:
Sholto David: “Figure 6: LPS and LPS + Alcohol in the top row are mostly the same image. There is also a cloned area in the bottom row in the Control image.”
Sholto David : “There is another unexpected overlap in Figure 2“
Spirocladia hodgsoniae: “There is unexpected overlap in Figure 6A”
The PubPeer posts came in May 2025, on 29 September 2025, Springer Nature issued this Correction:
“After online publication of this article, the authors noticed errors in Figs. 2 and 6. These errors occurred in the preparation and revision of figures, but do not affect the results and conclusions in this study. The authors have provided new versions of Figs. 2 and 6. […]
The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused. The original article has been corrected.”
Indeed, the offending figures were replaced in the online version and the pdf. Permanence shmermanence of record, no reader will know anymore what the figures looked like before correction. If you wonder why Springer Nature scrubbed those old figures from their website, here is what a sleuth found in an archived copy on a certain server:
Aneurus inconstans: “Again control 6A: there are many more cloned portions (polygons of same color), this micrograph is completely made up.”
But wait, it gets even better:
Aneurus inconstans : “Again Figure 6A, this time the concern is about the image of PDX treatment. This image also appears in Figure 8 of Zhang et al. 2017, a paper published a year earlier by the same group where the treatment supposedly was LPS+Mar1. Astonishingly the two images are not 100% identical: the upper left corner and an internal region (yellow polygon) differ.”
This is that other paper by the same team, it has other problems:
Aneurus inconstans: “Figure 2a: micrographs supposedly representing lung tissue of control rats and PCTR1-treated rats actually […] are two takes (at slightly different focal planes) of the same sample.”
More for Jin’s team, with or without Smith, is on PubPeer.
Something that Springer Nature will not tolerate
In this regard, you really must see what else Springer Nature has published.
Before you see the recent masterpiece, read this statement by the Research Integrity Director from April 2025, the occasion being the addition of a “New research integrity AI tool“:
“Fake research is a challenge that affects the entire publishing industry and is something that Springer Nature will not tolerate. From creating AI tools, to building a now 50-strong expert research integrity unit, to developing our employees’ and editors’ expertise through training, we are absolutely committed to ensuring the robustness of published research for researchers to build upon.”
Chris Graf, Director of Research Integrity at Springer Nature
Now I got you in the mood, so: curtains up!
We will start with a warm-up act, a band from Iran:
Sholto David : “Figure 9: Could the authors comment on why there are so many duplicated areas in these images? Annotated by ImageTwin.ai.”
Applause!
Subtle modifications between proof and final version
At Elsevier, they offer papermill fraudsters quick fixes. The journal Ceramics International, presided over by Pietro Vincenzini of World Academy of Ceramics, in Faenza, Italy, seems to have an editorial policy where mansucripts NOT generated by papermills get desk-rejected. Solid papermill handiwork like this enjoys special editorial support:
Dysdera arabisenen “Green circlosin the close-up highlight unusual features in this EDX”
Mu Yang informed on Pubpeer and on LInkedIn what the journal did then:
“I flagged and reported the paper when it was a pre-proof, for obvious EDX “issues”. I am guessing the journal let the authors swap in another EDX and waved the paper in,”
The fake yet peer reviewed figure was replaced with something new which looks completely different:
The replacement is hand-drawn fraud:
Dysdera arabisenen “Fig 5 […]: Green boxes were placed snuggly over the close-up of O and Zn peaks, to show that the width of the peaks expanded and narrowed several times along the height of the peaks.”
Oirginally, Mu actually notified the journal about two fake papers by Sathish Kumar Palaniappan (PubPeer record), here is the other one:
The journal is probably preparing a stealth correction for that paper also, with new hand-drawn cartoons.
Elsevier’s behaviour in this case is similar to the situation in another papermill-infested journal by this publisher, Diamond and Related Materials. As I reported in May 2025 Shorts, the papermill forgery Zeshan et al 2024 received a stealth correction, where fake figures were replaced with slightly less obviously fake figures, without any notice. However, the Belgian Editor-in-CHief announced to investigate, and on 1 November 2025, the paper was retracted. The retraction notice mentioned “a PubPeer post” and reported a past stealth correction:
“It has been brought to the journals attention that subtle modifications were made to these images between the proof version of the manuscript and the final published version. Such modifications compromise the transparency and integrity of the scientific record.”
Retraction Watchdogging
Some of the dots may be similar
A retraction for the Italian professor Enrico Vittorio Avvedimento, now almost 76 years old and hence presumably retired at his infamous University of Naples Federico II. There is a celebrity coauthor who actually made this university infamous: Italy most notorious research fraudster Alfredo Fusco, who of course never suffered any real consequences. There is also someone non-Italian, namely Avvedimento’s close collaboratorMax Gottesman, emeritus professor at Columbia University in New York, USA (Avvedimento worked for 4 years there, from 1987 till 1991).
The paper was flagged on PubPeer already 11 years ago.
Concetta Cuozzo , Antonio Porcellini , Tiziana Angrisano , Annalisa Morano , Bongyong Lee , Alba Di Di Pardo , Samantha Messina , Rodolfo Iuliano , Alfredo Fusco , Maria R. Santillo , Mark T. Muller , Lorenzo Chiariotti , Max E. Gottesman , Enrico V. Avvedimento DNA damage, homology-directed repair, and DNA methylationPLoS Genetics (2007) doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030110
Fig1b, detail, visualised by Actinopolyspora biskrensis
“Figure 5B […] middle left and lower left panel appear to share similar groups of datapoints, while the middle and lower right panels also have many datapoints in common.”
A Correction from February 2015 addressed only one issue:
“Fig 5B shows a bivariate analysis of GFP fluorescence (FL1) vs Side Scatter (SSC). The FL2 axis labels in Fig 5B are incorrect, as they represent the SSC and not fluorescence. The authors have provided a corrected Fig 5 and legend here.”
The sleuth Actinopolyspora biskrensis informed on PubPeer: “I notified the journal by email on June 6, 2022“, and shared this Retraction from 27 October 2025 (highlights mine):
“After this article [1] and Correction [2] were published, additional concerns were raised regarding Figs 1 and 5. Specifically:
Lanes 1 and 2 of the Fig 1Bb right GFP panel appear similar.
The following Fig 5B panels appear more similar than would be expected from independent results:
The WT + I-Scel panel and the WT + I-Scel 5-AzadC panel
The Dnmt1-/- + I-Scel panel and the Dnmt1-/- + I-Scel 5-AzadC panel
The corresponding author (EVA) disagrees with the concerns pertaining to Fig 1B. They stated that the original uncropped images underlying this figure are no longer available.
In response to the concerns regarding Fig 5B, the corresponding author (EVA) stated that it is likely that some of the dots may be similar, because the processor used to analyze the files was a 8bit fcs files analyzer which converted a collection of 100K points into a 256×256 dot plot. They provided original flow cytometry data files for Fig 5B and individual-level quantitative data for Figs 5A and 5C. They also shared screenshots of their own reanalysis of some of the original and replicate data files, but details regarding the gating windows used to construct the published panels were not available.
PLOS consulted an independent expert who assessed the original files underlying the FACS plots in Fig 5B and the reanalysis of some original files completed by the authors. The independent expert stated that these original files were generated on two different dates using two different flow cytometer instruments. They advised that the flow cytometry dot plots for WT and Dnmt-/- cells in both the control and + I-Scel 5-AzadC groups in Fig 5B did not accurately represent the corresponding underlying data files, and the data provided by the authors were considered insufficient to resolve the concerns raised with Fig 5B.
In light of the above unresolved concerns which question the integrity and reliability of these data, the PLOS Genetics Editors retract this article.
AP, TA, BL, SM, RI, AF, MRS, MTM, LC, MEG, and EVA did not agree with the retraction. CC, AM, and ADP either did not respond directly or could not be reached.”
Basically, Avvedimento cheated with fudged “raw” data. He now failed with this paper PLOS Genetics, but so far he succeeded everywhere else. There are almost 30 such bad papers for him on PubPeer. Here for example, Plos One:
Moving on to a journal by another society publisher (now sold to Taylor & Francis) – another paper by Avvedimento and Gottesman, with a certain German superstar called Axel Ullrich (read March 2024 Shorts):
Fig 2D: two Input menin bands identical, see splicing. Two Input chk1 lanes show same background pattern, bands similar, just slightly rotated.
This was corrected also:
Paola Giuliano , Tiziana De Cristofaro , Adelina Affaitati , Grazia M Pizzulo , Antonio Feliciello , Chiara Criscuolo , Giuseppe De Michele , Alessandro Filla , Enrico V Avvedimento , Stelio Varrone DNA damage induced by polyglutamine-expanded proteinsHuman Molecular Genetics (2003) doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddg242
Fig 2B
The Correction from 15 December 2024 went (highlights mine):
“In April 2024 a reader notified the journal about similarities in bands in the αP-JNK lanes in Figure 2B. The experiments were conducted approximately 20 years ago, and the authors no longer have all the original data. The corresponding author has provided an earlier figure of the replicated experiment here to confirm their findings and are correcting Figure 2B below. The Journal Editors have reviewed the additional data and accept the author’s explanation. These details have been corrected only in this correction notice to preserve the published version of record.”
Rest assured that “earlier” figure was forged also. Anyway, this was published in Science, so nobody say Avvedimento’s fake science had no impact on actual science.
As you might remember, in early 2022 all scholarly publishers swiftly agree that russian authors must forever continue to be most welcome in their journals.
The rascist Alexey Mikhaylov is associate professor at the so-called “Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation” in Moscow, and is very notable according to his English-language Wikipedia page. Thus, no journal can say no to such an agent of russian terror regime indeed. See this recently published, and two months later retracted paper in Scientific Reports:
“The Editors have retracted this Article because its authorship could not be verified.
The name of the corresponding author Nóra Hegedűsné Baranyai appears to have been used without her knowledge or permission. She has now been removed from the authors’ list for this Article.
Yasser Fouad, Alexey Mikhaylov, Kitmo & Ch. Rami Reddy disagree with the retraction. G. Madhu Mohan, T. Anil Kumar, A. Srujana did not explicitly state whether they agree or disagree with the retraction.”
In this retracted study, Mikhaylov declares several affiliations: the one in Moscow, one at Baku Eurasian University in Azerbaijan, and noteworthy – University of Pannonia in Hungary, exactly where that wrongfully assigned authior Nóra Hegedűsné Baranyai works.
These two papers in Scientific Reports were also retracted:
“The Editors have retracted this Article because its authorship could not be verified. The name of the corresponding author Tamara Broderick [Tamara Baverick in Dincer et al, – LS] appears to have been used without her knowledge or permission. She has now been removed from the Authors’ list for this Article.
None of the Authors responded to the correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.”
Tamara Broderick is associate professor at MIT in USA, her name was transformed to Baverick in Dincer et al 2024 probably because Mikhailov was again very drunk.
Alexander Magazinov presents you two russian professors whom Elsevier and MDPI consider respectable: a Lt Colonel of putin’s mass-murdering army, and a machine-gun totting rascist. Both buy from papermills.
A similar retraction for Mikhailov at IOP (highlights mine), this time Zuleima Karpyn, associate dean for Graduate Education and Research at Pennsylvania State University in USA, had her identity stolen:
“This article has been retracted by IOP Publishing following an allegation that one of the author’s names had been used without their knowledge or permission.
IOP Publishing has investigated in line with the COPE guidelines, and confirm Zuleima Karpyn’s name and affiliation was used without her knowledge or permission, using an email address ‘prof714@rambler.ru’. Zuleima Karpyn has now been removed from the author list for this article. As this author’s name was used as the corresponding author and signed in their name, this renders the agremeent to publish null and void. The authors disagree with this retraction. IOP Publishing wishes to credit anonymous whistleblowers for bringing the issue to our attention.
Why Mikhailov picks women as his victims of identity theft, is something sexual pathologists might be able to explain.
In any case, Sage Publishing presumably ignores Karpyn’s pleas, so she is stuck with several papers by Mikhailov where he impersonated her with the same email address “prof714@rambler.ru“. Just look at its title:
Mikhailov’s russian-language Wiki page refers to Dissernet with a list of his purchased authorships, and indeed, Gura et al 2022 was retracted by Springer Nature in July 2023 because “authorship in this article had been offered for sale prior to its publication“.
Anna Abalkina posted some evidence on PubPeer, here in MDPI were have a Polish head of department as both author and editor – Beata Slusarczyk of Czestochowa University of Technology:
Anna Abalkina : “This paper has an unexpected similarity with a paper offered by “International Publisher” LLC which was analyzed in a study available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1574. The images display screenshots from the paper itself and an offer (Google translated in English) on the website of “International Publisher” LLC (123mi.ru/1). This paper is a part of a special issue ” Special Issue Management and Technology for Energy Efficiency Development” edited by three guest editors, among whom Beata Ślusarczyk is included. She is also a co-author of this paper. The offer stated that the 2nd place is reserved for an editor.”
Don’t bother alerting the Editor-in-Chief of Energies though – Enrico Sciubba will reply with insults and boasts of his sexual conquests:
“I know you cannot understand such matters, since you appear to have strong mother-related problems that most likely have denied you of a satisfactory sexual life”, _ Enrico Sciubba, Editor-in-Chief
Two other papers by Mikhailov, An et al 2019 and Mikhailov et al 2019, were retracted by the Ukrainian journal Business Perspectives in August 2020 for “plagiarism and paraphrases from Russian-language sources“.
There is more stuff like this for Mikailov on PubPeer. In this regard, one wonders how Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen, professor at Arctic University of Norway, ended up in a predatory journal with Mikhailov (An et al 2019).
Manipulation of the publication process, peer review integrity, and authorship
Three retractions in PLOS One for Hungarian papermiller Judit Olah, who already suffered retractions in Frontiers (read August 2025 Shorts). She is Head of the Doctoral School of Management and Business at John von Neumann University in Budapest, professor at University of Debrecen, also in Hungary, professor at Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, and honorary professor at Lahore University in Pakistan. No wonder this busy woman has no time to do any actual reserach and has to buy authorships from papermills.
So here are her retractions, none of these 3 papers was flagged on PubPeer before:
“The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1,2] because it was identified as one of a series of submissions for which we have concerns about potential manipulation of the publication process, peer review integrity, and authorship. These concerns call into question the validity and provenance of the reported results. We regret that the issues were not identified prior to the article’s publication.
CTDL, IAK, and JO did not agree with the retraction. MP either did not respond directly or could not be reached.”
According to the stated affiliations, Olah aquired yet another professorship – at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa (where the papermillers Mika Sillanpää and Michael Hamblin also “work”). These two retracted papers had simialr notices:
The last author Veronika Fenyves is Dean of the faculty of economics at the University of Debrecen.
Donate!
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). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!
When it comes to the passing of James Watson, I can’t help but feel like time has judged him harshly. Thankfully I’m quite sure I’ll never be famous enough to be “cancelled” but I do wonder how I’ll navigate old age with an accumulating quantity of fringe beliefs and increasing desire to say irritating things. Still, seeing the type of people in public mourning of James Watson makes me question my own position 😂
Character traits tend to get worse with old age, and Watson was so used to have his arse kissed that he totally didn’t expect the reaction which happened when he continued talking as it it was still 1950ies.
But yeah, Sinclair loves him, what a surprise ..
Watson either went or planned to go to Epstein’s “party”…
Jeffrey Epstein invited James Watson ("guy that discovered DNA") to his birthday party in 2017Epstein: He is outspokenUnknown: I like outspoken peopleEpstein: I identify with them. He has an troubled child. he said he didn't enjoy any of the fifty years of raising himtinyurl.com/3rd3nuph (1/x)
The rascist Alexey Mikhaylov is associate professor at the so-called “Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation” in Moscow, and is very notable according to his English-language Wikipedia page.
Another Mihkaylov retraction! One of the cases where the identity of the credibility-conferring sockpupper ‘coauthor’ was stolen from Zuleima Karpyn. The retraction note merely hints at “concerns around author contributions to this article”.
“I wish to state clearly that my name has been used on this publication without my knowledge, consent, or involvement. I did not contribute to this research in any capacity, nor did I authorize being listed as a co-author or corresponding author. This paper is one of multiple publications—including author Mikhaylov, a person I do not know—in which my name has been improperly added despite my having no role in their conception, execution, analysis, or writing. Such unauthorized use of my identity undermines the integrity of the scholarly record and misrepresents my professional contributions.”
The following articles have been retracted at the request of the journal Editors and the Publisher:
Mikhaylov A, Chang T, Mukhanova A, Bukharbayeva A and Karpyn Z (2024) Applying theorem of ross to transition probability matrix in energy options pricing after political tensions and Russia–Ukraine conflict. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 42(5): 1715–1726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987241237152.
Duan F, Ali AB, Jasim DJ, Mikhaylov A, Karpyn Z, Sharma V (2025) Parameters estimation of PV models using a novel hybrid equilibrium optimization algorithm. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 43(3): 990-1020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987241311310.
After an internal investigation Sage has become aware that these articles contained indicators of third-party involvement.
Due to concerns around author contributions to these articles, as well as concerns around the integrity of the research process, Sage and the journal editors retract these articles.
The authors did not respond when contacted.
The effect is to blame the victim of the identity theft as an equal partner in fraudulent papers, authorship shenanigans, and abuse of the review process, and to link her to the retractions. The editors and the publisher need to get in the sea.
These two papers were retracted now, for identity theft. Just before that, @PubPeer.com (who block me) moderated my comments. Simply to prove something to or about me. But what? pubpeer.com/publications…pubpeer.com/publications…
What I meant to say was that the scenario of regular scientific collaboration in those days that Cobb & Comfort present appears very plausible to me, judged from my own experience in scientific collaborations. Their analysis elevates Franklin’s status from victim to collaborator who deserved an equal share of the rewards. In that sense, I do not see how Cobb being a fan of Watson & Crick matters.
Perhaps Cobb & Comfort consulted different sources that were not available to the authors of other books to make them approach the truth more closely. In any case, that story of the Aha-Erlebnis of glancing at Photograph 51 and then instantly understanding DNA always seemed a bit over the top to me. That’s not how science works, again, in my experience.
“CBS News made an interview for “60 Minutes” with the Harvard researchers, it was aired on 9 December 2025. “
Isn’t that in the future?
LikeLike
Thank you, I fixed it.
LikeLike
Hungarian papermillers, wow… that happening now all over the place. Albert Szent-Györgyi is rolling in his grave.
https://telex.hu/komplex/2024/10/08/plagium-tudomanyos-cikk-visszavonas-tanulmanygyar-obudai-egyetem
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Patrik Viktor.
https://forbetterscience.com/tag/patrik-viktor/
Originally featured here:
LikeLiked by 1 person
University of Lahore. Same university where the papermiller and mentee of Rafael Luque, Awais Ahmad is an Assistant Professor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Judith Olah got also a professorship in Poland.
https://bazawiedzy.wsb.edu.pl/info/author/AWSBfab5aed4f38d4f379b81e36e87ed6d61?aq=%40status%3APRACOWNIK*%2Cauthorprofile%2Fposition%2F%40namePL%21%3Aadiunkt%2Cauthorprofile%2F%40possitionPL%21%3Aadiunkt%2Cauthorprofile%2Fposition%2F%40namePL%21%3Aprofesor%2Cauthorprofile%2F%40possitionPL%21%3Aprofesor%2C%40active%3D%27true%27%2CmainDiscipline%3AWUTd3f887497d3146e09466718a485ca1b9%3BactivityDiscipline%2Fdiscipline%3AWUTd3f887497d3146e09466718a485ca1b9&r=author&ps=20&tab=&lang=en&title=Profil%2Bosoby%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2BJudit%2BOlah%252C%2Bprof.%2BAWSB%2B%25E2%2580%2593%2BAkademia%2BWSB&pn=1&cid=9975282
LikeLike
Funnily, Olah is full time professor in at least 4-5 places. I wonder if she indeed collects all those salaries and never comes to work anywhere.
LikeLike
Retracted articles by Judith Olah with Beata Gavurova (https://forbetterscience.com/?s=gavurova)
LikeLike
When it comes to the passing of James Watson, I can’t help but feel like time has judged him harshly. Thankfully I’m quite sure I’ll never be famous enough to be “cancelled” but I do wonder how I’ll navigate old age with an accumulating quantity of fringe beliefs and increasing desire to say irritating things. Still, seeing the type of people in public mourning of James Watson makes me question my own position 😂
https://x.com/davidasinclair/status/1987279014273106253
LikeLiked by 1 person
Character traits tend to get worse with old age, and Watson was so used to have his arse kissed that he totally didn’t expect the reaction which happened when he continued talking as it it was still 1950ies.
But yeah, Sinclair loves him, what a surprise ..
LikeLike
Watson either went or planned to go to Epstein’s “party”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another Mihkaylov retraction! One of the cases where the identity of the credibility-conferring sockpupper ‘coauthor’ was stolen from Zuleima Karpyn. The retraction note merely hints at “concerns around author contributions to this article”.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2AF9FFE5CF4075B96175EFE729BF8E
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karpyn replied on PubPeer now:
“I wish to state clearly that my name has been used on this publication without my knowledge, consent, or involvement. I did not contribute to this research in any capacity, nor did I authorize being listed as a co-author or corresponding author. This paper is one of multiple publications—including author Mikhaylov, a person I do not know—in which my name has been improperly added despite my having no role in their conception, execution, analysis, or writing. Such unauthorized use of my identity undermines the integrity of the scholarly record and misrepresents my professional contributions.”
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D174BB197299E2B0D35A8E042DA944#2
LikeLike
More Sage retractions, dated 18 November 2025:
The following articles have been retracted at the request of the journal Editors and the Publisher:
Mikhaylov A, Chang T, Mukhanova A, Bukharbayeva A and Karpyn Z (2024) Applying theorem of ross to transition probability matrix in energy options pricing after political tensions and Russia–Ukraine conflict. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 42(5): 1715–1726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987241237152.
Duan F, Ali AB, Jasim DJ, Mikhaylov A, Karpyn Z, Sharma V (2025) Parameters estimation of PV models using a novel hybrid equilibrium optimization algorithm. Energy Exploration & Exploitation 43(3): 990-1020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987241311310.
After an internal investigation Sage has become aware that these articles contained indicators of third-party involvement.
Due to concerns around author contributions to these articles, as well as concerns around the integrity of the research process, Sage and the journal editors retract these articles.
The authors did not respond when contacted.
The effect is to blame the victim of the identity theft as an equal partner in fraudulent papers, authorship shenanigans, and abuse of the review process, and to link her to the retractions. The editors and the publisher need to get in the sea.
LikeLike
Nice, but my comments were banned by PubPeer.
LikeLike
On Watson, you repeat the “stole from Franklin” argument, but this more nuanced analysis appears quite reasonable to my (scientific) eyes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5
LikeLike
Cobb is a fan of Watson and Crick. He literally makes a living by defending them.
Anyway, why is his book more scientific than the books others wrote?
LikeLike
What I meant to say was that the scenario of regular scientific collaboration in those days that Cobb & Comfort present appears very plausible to me, judged from my own experience in scientific collaborations. Their analysis elevates Franklin’s status from victim to collaborator who deserved an equal share of the rewards. In that sense, I do not see how Cobb being a fan of Watson & Crick matters.
Perhaps Cobb & Comfort consulted different sources that were not available to the authors of other books to make them approach the truth more closely. In any case, that story of the Aha-Erlebnis of glancing at Photograph 51 and then instantly understanding DNA always seemed a bit over the top to me. That’s not how science works, again, in my experience.
LikeLike