Schneider Shorts 10.07.2026 – Research environment committed to rigor and honesty

Schneider Shorts of 10 July 2026 – a bullying diva whitewashed in a Swiss travesty, the importance of AI for science, plus retractions for a legendary Italian fraudster in USA and scholars in New Zealand and Romania.

---

---

Science Elites

Research environment committed to rigor and honesty

Switzerland has now a new national martyr saint. The neuroscientist Adriano Aguzzi was officially declared innocent by his own University of Zürich. Seven publications were found to contain falsified data, but this bullying diva is totally not responsible for anything Not just that: despite his reaching retirement age, the university went on their knees and begged Aguzzi to stay longer as professor and publish even more dodgy trash. The only thing missing in this utterly pathetic whitewashing exercise, is the University of Zürich bestowing a retrospective PhD degree on Aguzzi, because for decades he falsely pretended to have one. Read below, also Aguzzi’s own comments under this article, where he accused me of “revenge porn” and threatened suicide:

Now, here is the university’s announcement, published on 2 July 2026, and titled “Integrity Proceedings Clear Adriano Aguzzi“. It starts with a lie:

“In spring 2024, the Executive Board of the University of Zurich (UZH) initiated integrity proceedings to examine allegations of academic misconduct relating to several publications by Adriano Aguzzi, Full Professor at UZH and Director of the Institute of Neuropathology at the University Hospital Zurich. The allegations primarily concerned the inappropriate alteration or reuse of figures derived from image-based laboratory methods, microscopy images and visual representations of numerical data.

The investigation examined a total of 36 publications to which Adriano Aguzzi contributed. The publications reviewed were published over a period of 28 years, from 1996 to 2023.”

The lie is that Aguzzi was supposed to be under investigation not since spring 2024, but since December 2019, when I reported him to the university’s authorities. This is what the university’s vice-rector Christian Schwarzenegger told me several times, see his emails from December 2019:

Back then, the University of Zurich absolutely didn’t object to Aguzzi’s threats of lawsuits against me. In fact, we now learn that Schwarzenegger’s investigation consisted of asking Aguzzi to be more careful in the future, as the published report reveals:

But the university knew that fraud happened, and they knew that Aguzzi is not an innocent angel: he did receive some kind of a reprimand after all. They also forced him to reduce his lab’s size:

Now the university openly admits to have started an investigation only because the science writer Charles Piller asked questions:

The original plan was to investigate only nine papers:

But Piller had more questions, so more papers were investigated. Yes, this is f***ed up.

The university however somehow made sure that Piller didn’t write any bad things about Aguzzi in his book Doctored:

Rumours reached me that’s because PIller plans another book, and unlike in his 2024 book “Doctored“, Aguzzi may not get to play the good guy a second time.

Back to the announcement by the University of Zürich:

“The proceedings found that the majority of the irregularities identified relate to visual material presented in the publications. In some instances, figures were misassigned, inadequately processed or modified in an impermissible or inappropriate manner.

Scientifically relevant errors were conclusively identified in seven publications that named Adriano Aguzzi as both the last author and corresponding author. In this capacity, he bears scientific responsibility for these publications.

The other publications under review also showed formal shortcomings; however, these could be remedied through corrections, leaving a core body of scientific findings whose validity was not affected. In several publications, the suspected violation of academic integrity was not substantiated. In other cases, the irregularities identified were assessed as minor or inconclusive.”

Two of Aguzzi’s papers were previously retracted, as I reported in July 2024 Shorts and March 2025 Shorts. Which leaves another five, the now published investigative report (authored by Wolfgang Ernst) lists 36 investigated papers, papers listed in the Annex as 1, 6, 10, 11,
12, 25 and 26 are the bad ones, Aguzzi is last author on all of them:

Here, the Annex betrays that Aguzzi was indeed investigated in 2020. Now, to the appers, click on PubPeer links to see how bad they are:

1. Johannes Haybaeck , Mathias Heikenwalder , Britta Klevenz , Petra Schwarz , Ilan Margalith , Claire Bridel, Kirsten Mertz, Elizabeta Zirdum, Benjamin Petsch, Thomas J. Fuchs, Lothar Stitz , Adriano Aguzzi Aerosols transmit prions to immunocompetent and immunodeficient mice PLoS pathogens (2011) doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001257  RETRACTED July 2024

For the above paper, a note is added: “Part of preliminary investigation by MZ 2020; was closed due to correction)” (MZ being the former Ombudsperson Monica Zwicky). There was indeed an old correction from February 2016, for “Figs 3, 5 and 6. In Fig 3, an error was introduced during the preparation of the figure for publication.”

The June 2024 retraction (which I covered in in July 2024 Shorts) therefore happened clearly AGAINST instructions from the University of Zurich to leave that paper in peace.

Also for the totally fraudulent paper Nr 6 we read: “Part of preliminary investigation by MZ 2020; still open due to ongoing correspondence with journal & ongoing experiments“:

6. Nicolas Genoud , David Ott , Nathalie Braun , Marco Prinz , Petra Schwarz , Ueli Suter , Didier Trono, Adriano Aguzzi Antiprion prophylaxis by gene transfer of a soluble prion antagonist American Journal Of Pathology (2008) doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.070836 

Yes, they are trying to save that fake trash. Six more papers were “Part of preliminary investigation by MZ 2020“: Aguzzi et al 2008 (a review), Zhu et al 2018. Nuvolone et al 2017 (not yet on PubPeer), Fisher et al 2020 (see below), Heikenwalder et al 2007 (Aguzzi promised correction, never published) and Polymenidou et al 2004 (corrected in November 2020).

Let’s continue with the officially bad papers:

10. Mathias Heikenwalder , Nicolas Zeller , Harald Seeger, Marco Prinz , Peter-Christian Klöhn , Petra Schwarz , Nancy H. Ruddle, Charles Weissmann , Adriano Aguzzi Chronic Lymphocytic Inflammation Specifies the Organ Tropism of Prions Science (2005) doi: 10.1126/science.1106460 CORRECTION April 2024
11. Frank L Heppner , Melanie Greter , Denis Marino , Jeppe Falsig , Gennadij Raivich , Nadine Hövelmeyer , Ari Waisman , Thomas Rülicke , Marco Prinz , Josef Priller , Burkhard Becher , Adriano Aguzzi Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis repressed by microglial paralysis Nature Medicine (2005) doi: 10.1038/nm1177   CORRECTION January 2005
12. Mathias Heikenwalder, Marco Prinz, Nicolas Zeller , Karl S Lang , Tobias Junt , Simona Rossi , Alexei Tumanov , Hauke Schmidt , Josef Priller , Lukas Flatz , Thomas Rülicke , Andrew J Macpherson , Georg A Holländer , Sergei A Nedospasov , Adriano Aguzzi Overexpression of lymphotoxin in T cells induces fulminant thymic involution American Journal Of Pathology (2008) doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.070572 CORRECTION June 2024

Charles Weissmann is Aguzzi’s former mentor and University of Zurich professor, he died in December 2025 aged 94. Aguzzi’s own mentee Johannes Haybaeck was fired in Magdeburg for causing death and suffering to patients, his other mentee Mathias Heikenwalder however made it big in Heidelberg, read here:

25. Asvin K K Lakkaraju , Karl Frontzek , Emina Lemes , Uli Herrmann , Marco Losa , Rajlakshmi Marpakwar , Adriano Aguzzi Loss of PIKfyve drives the spongiform degeneration in prion diseases EMBO Molecular Medicine (2021) doi: 10.15252/emmm.202114714  EDITOR’S NOTE February 2025, posted on PubPeer only!
26. Asvin KK Lakkaraju , Oliver Tejero , Ramon Guixà-González , Elena De Cecco , Martina Jungo , Ching-Ju Tsai , Rocco Mastromartino , Jacopo Marino , Xavier Deupi , Simone Hornemann , Gebhard FX Schertler, Adriano Aguzzi The adhesion GPCR Adgrd1 is a prion protein receptor and a mediator of prion cytotoxicity bioRxiv (2023) doi: 10.1101/2023.04.29.538801 WITHDRAWN by authors in February 2024

The last preprint carries a note in the report: “Additional investigations conducted by AA on his own initiative indicate that the experiment depicted in Supplementary Fig. 1E has been intentionally fabricated.”

There was supposed to be a third retraction for Aguzzi’s last author paper Genoud et al 2024 (read July 2025 Shorts), which the diva teeth-gnashingly announced while calling yours truly a “jackal” “with mental issues“, but it’s now clear that the University of Zürich managed to put a brake on the retraction and save this angel of innocence:

“Under the University of Zurich’s Integrity Ordinance, academic misconduct is deemed to occur when researchers intentionally or negligently violate the principles of good scientific practice.  The proceedings, however, found no evidence that Adriano Aguzzi acted intentionally.

Based on a reasonable standard of care expected within the relevant scientific community, the proceedings also concluded that Adriano Aguzzi cannot be found to have acted negligently. He supervised the research and publication activities in his laboratory with the necessary care and oversight. As a result, no culpable conduct and therefore no academic misconduct as defined by the university’s Integrity Ordinance can be attributed to him. The proceedings are therefore closed.”

Aguzzi has around 60 bad papers on PubPeer.

The university specifically made no instructions on corrections or retractions, this decision is solely left to Aguzzi. There was also no investigation regarding workplace bullying, despite Aguzzi’s public record of bullying and harassment on social media. The university interviewed some lab mmebers, who defended their angelic boss:

Even though the university decided NOT to investigate Aguzzi’s bullying, the employees still complained about it:

But due to the favoritism (“preferential treatment of individual employees“), successful lab members reported being happy about Aguzzi’s leadership, so the university agreed that the complainers were just sad losers. These lab members also reported “systemic and structural pressure to produce and publish results“, a “hierarchically organized” and “very competitive” lab where the boss was often absent and the postdocs did the supervision all by themselves.

In 2022, a PhD student was tasked with reproducing the results from Aguzzi’s Nature paper Küffer et al 2016. The experiments turned to be irreproducible, the student also reported that one of the authors “tried to unfairly control the experimental result through manipulative use of reagents” and notified Aguzzi about the fraud. But then Aguzzi asked a few selected lab members to repeat those experiments, and they of course succeeded, after which Aguzzi defended the accused fraudster and bullied the whistleblower each time the student tried to start a discussion about that fraud. The affair was buried, the fraudsters quietly let go, the whistleblower graduated and sent off also, Nature was not informed, and the university now applauds Aguzzi for all this.

The announcement contains, next to the investigative report, a statement from Aguzzi himself, where he blames his mentees for everything:

“Statement by Adriano Aguzzi
There cannot be any ambivalence: fabricating results is a total betrayal of what science is about […] Also, it is not a victimless crime. In my lab, we spent a year trying to advance a project built upon findings that were later found to have been fabricated by a postdoc. […]

Over 39 years of scientific activity, I trained 109 PhD students and postdoctoral fellows, and work from my laboratory contributed to more than 600 publications. My coworkers and I maintained a research environment committed to rigor and honesty: new results were continuously discussed and challenged, and manuscripts were scrutinized multiple times before publication. […] my experience is not unique. History shows that even highly rigorous laboratories can be deceived by determined fraudsters.[…]

Whereas I never committed, abetted, or tolerated scientific fraud, it is disturbing that those individuals who committed misconduct in my laboratory were never subjected to inquiries or sanctions.”

Dear reader, I am sorry I made you vomit. Yes, he even admits his Nature paper Küffer et al 2016 was fraudulent, but in Aguzzi’s view, one should punish traitors instead of retracting fake papers. Wait, it gets better:

“I was not always a perfect institute director. I regret that some of my social-media statements were imprudent and caused unnecessary tension. This has made my laboratory a target for malevolent online attacks. In retrospect, I should have been more disciplined.”

Aguzzi and his University of Zurich blame yours truly for causing this angel so much anguish that he started to bully people online. Hence, no need to apologise to the victims of his online harassment.

And if anyone hoped the university would force Aguzzi to retire, he ends with a fart in their faces:

“Although I have reached the Swiss statutory retirement age, I am not finished with science. I have recently endowed a public-good foundation that will perform not-for-profit research in the field to which I have devoted my entire career. […] I am grateful that the University of Zurich has allowed this transition to proceed. Patients and families continue to wait for answers. If my colleagues and I can continue to contribute, even modestly, to understanding these diseases and ultimately to finding ways to treat them, then the work remains worth doing.”

Reader, did you puke again?

---

Scholarly Publishing

Generated by Doubao AI

Welcome to the new beautiful world of AI in science. This paper caused quite a fuss on Chinese internet, I was told:

Lizi Yang , Fang Lu , WenYa Liang , Hongfei Jia , Ran Fang Electrostatic gating synergizing with size sieving: A MOF-Based nanofiltration membrane for mitigating the permeability-selectivity trade-off in lithium recovery Journal of Membrane Science (2026) doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2026.125315 

The spectra look perfectly convincing and real, except that they were AI-generated. We know that because the idiot authors and their idiot papermill suppliers forgot to remove the AI watermark.

On 30 June 2026, Elsevier decorated the paper with an Expression of Concern:

“This temporary Expression of Concern relates to the above article.

Concerns have been brought to the attention of the journal regarding potential manipulation of images in Figure 4, and disclosure of the use of AI in Figure 2

The journal is investigating the concerns, including contacting the authors, in line with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the journal’s policies.

The Expression of Concern will remain appended to the article until the investigation has been completed. If the editors can reach a conclusion, they will take any action that is deemed necessary. If the editors have determined that they cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion with the information available to them, further notification will be published to update the community.”

Lesson to everyone: always check your AI-generated figures for watermarks before publishing!

---

Retraction Watchdogging

Discrepancies between the raw data and published figures

Rajesh Katare, a cheater from University of Otago in New Zealand, and a former mentee of the estranged couple Paolo Madeddu and Costanza Emanueli in UK, earn another retraction, his second. The first one featured in March 2024 Shorts.

The paper was correction in October 2020, ironically to assign Katare the full responsibility for all this fraud, by declaring that he “was omitted as a corresponding author” and that he and his Otago colleague Daryl Schwenke “were omitted as equally contributing authors” :

Joshua P. H. Neale , James T. Pearson , Kate N. Thomas , Hirotsugu Tsuchimochi , Hiroshi Hosoda , Masayasu Kojima , Takahiro Sato , Gregory T. Jones , Adam P. Denny , Lorna J. Daniels , Dhananjie Chandrasekera , Ping Liu , Andre M. Van Rij , Rajesh Katare , Daryl O. Schwenke Dysregulation of ghrelin in diabetes impairs the vascular reparative response to hindlimb ischemia in a mouse model; clinical relevance to peripheral artery disease Scientific Reports (2020) doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70391-6 

The retraction from 20 June 2026 hinted that the authors tried to trick the editors with false raw data:

“After publication, concerns were raised regarding some of the data presented in the figures, specifically:

• Fig. 4A ND D0 AG and DAG images appear highly similar;
• Fig. 4E DM Veh and DAG images appear highly similar;
• Fig. 5A DM Sham and DAG images appear highly similar;
• Fig. 5E AG and DAG images appear to overlap;
• Fig. 5E DM Sham and AG images appear to overlap.

The Authors provided the underlying raw data for validation; however, further checks by the Editors found discrepancies between the raw data and published figures.

The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results of this Article.”

Her eis more fake stuff by Katare and Schwenke, whose miRNA research their university once celebrated as breakthroughs in curing diabetes and heart attacks:

Rajesh Katare , Shruti Rawal , Pujika Emani Munasinghe , Hirotsugu Tsuchimochi , Tadakatsu Inagaki , Yutaka Fujii , Parul Dixit , Keiji Umetani , Kenji Kangawa , Mikiyasu Shirai , Daryl O Schwenke Ghrelin Promotes Functional Angiogenesis in a Mouse Model of Critical Limb Ischemia Through Activation of Proangiogenic MicroRNAs Endocrinology (2016) doi: 10.1210/en.2015-1799 

That paper however was corrected in May 2025:

“In the published article, in Figure 6C, the image in the “EBM+Ghr” panel was unintentionally duplicated in the “EBM+miR-132” panel due to an error in assembling images for publication. The authors have provided a corrected replacement for Figure 6C, which is shown below. The caption remains correct with the replacement images.”

Two completely fraudulent papers by Katare with Madeddu and Emanueli were previously saved from retractions despite ridiculously fake western blots. Katare et al 2013 received an Expression of Concern in December 2023, its announcement “while an investigation is carried out” looks a bit outdated by now, especially since even more fraud was found there:

Moore et al 2014 was fixed in July 2025 with a permanent Expression of Concern which simply concluded: “Due to the age of the article the authors are no longer able to access the original data for validation.”

---

After further review

The legendary mega-cheater Carlo Croce earned another retraction! Italy’s greatest cancer researcher in USA and famed collector of counterfeit Baroque paintings remains unsackable and eternally innocent, despite research fraud investigation by his Ohio State University, retractions and lost lawsuits against his critics and his own lawyers who he also cheated out of their money.

This paper previously received a fraudulent correction:

Flavia Pichiorri , Dario Palmieri , Luciana De Luca , Jessica Consiglio , Jia You , Alberto Rocci , Tiffany Talabere , Claudia Piovan , Alessandro Lagana , Luciano Cascione , Jingwen Guan , Pierluigi Gasparini , Veronica Balatti , Gerard Nuovo , Vincenzo Coppola , Craig C. Hofmeister , Guido Marcucci , John C. Byrd , Stefano Volinia , Charles L. Shapiro , Michael A. Freitas, Carlo M. Croce In vivo NCL targeting affects breast cancer aggressiveness through miRNA regulation Journal of Experimental Medicine (2013) doi: 10.1084/jem.20120950 

As you see the January 2017 correction contained even more fraud, as PubPeer users noticed right after its publication. It insisted however: “Fig. 1 (E and F) were incorrect as a result of an error in figure presentation during the final production process. The conclusions of the experiments shown in these panels are not affected“.

In October 2022, an Expression of Concern was issued “regarding Figures 1 E and 1 F” and “Based on an investigation by the College of Medicine Investigation Committee (the COMIC) at The Ohio State University“, without any further details.

The retraction came 4 years later, on 30 June 2026:

“This article has been retracted at the request of the JEM editors. The article was published on April 22, 2013, and then Fig. 1, E and F, was corrected on January 19, 2017. JEM was notified by the Ohio State University in January 2021 that an investigation by the College of Medicine Investigation Committee (COMIC) determined that the RNU6 data in the original Fig. 1, E and F, as well as in the corrected versions, were falsified. An Expression of Concern was issued on October 3, 2022. After further review, the editors no longer have confidence in the data and are retracting the article. JEM notified all authors for whom contact information could be found but received no response.”

One wonders, what changed in all those years to make the editors suddenly lose confidence? What “further review” of that fraudulent correction took four, or rather nine years?

---

A human error during figure preparation

A retraction, possibly the first, for the Romanian cheater and Vice-Rector for Research of Western University of Arad Anca Hermenean, who was briefly mentioned as collaborator of the Galdiero Clan and Michele D’Amico in Naples, Italy:

The paper fell over one single image duplication, flagged by Fabian Wittmers:

Alexandra Folk , Cornel Balta , Hildegard Herman , Alexandra Ivan , Oana Maria Boldura , Lucian Paiusan , Aurel Ardelean , Anca Hermenean Flucytosine and Amphotericin B Coadministration Induces Dose-Related Renal Injury Dose-Response (2017) doi: 10.1177/1559325817703461 

The retraction needed slightly over a year and arrived on 30 June 2026:

“Sage was contacted by a reader with concerns about image overlap. Sage was also made aware of concerns raised on Pubpeer regarding the article (PubPeer – Flucytosine and Amphotericin B Coadministration Induces Dose…).

Specifically, the following issue was noted:

• Fig. 4(I) shows partial overlap between Panels A (control) and B (treatment).

The authors provided the raw images for Figure 4 and requested to replace Fig. 4 (I) Panel A. The journal editor and Sage reviewed the request and the raw images and deemed that concerns regarding image integrity were present.

Due to the unresolved concerns about image integrity, that call into question the validity of the findings, the Journal Editor and Sage retract the article.

Author Hermenean A did not agree with the retraction. “

Maybe the publisher Sage needs to address this also?

Anca Hermenean , Aurel Ardelean , Miruna Stan , Nicoleta Hadaruga , Ciprian-Valentin Mihali , Marieta Costache , Anca Dinischiotu Antioxidant and hepatoprotective effects of naringenin and its β-cyclodextrin formulation in mice intoxicated with carbon tetrachloride: a comparative study Journal of Medicinal Food (2014) doi: 10.1089/jmf.2013.0007 

Hermenean has a lot more on PubPeer, courtesy of Fabian and other sleuths.

(1/x) This weekend, I have flagged 18 research articles by the Romanian researcher Anca Hermenean who is Professor as part of the Faculty of Medicine & Department Head at Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad in Romania. pubpeer.com/search?q=Anc…

— Fabian Wittmers (@academic-integrity.bsky.social) 2025-05-04T17:58:26.217Z

This was corrected by MDPI already last year, in December 2025. We were informed about “the inadvertent selection of incorrect images from our storage folders during the figure assembly process” and that “the scientific conclusions are unaffected“:

Roxana-Elena Cristian, Cornel Balta, Hildegard Herman, Bogdan Trica, Beatrice G. Sbarcea, Anca Hermenean , Anca Dinischiotu , Miruna S. Stan In Vivo Assessment of Hepatic and Kidney Toxicity Induced by Silicon Quantum Dots in Mice Nanomaterials (2024) doi: 10.3390/nano14050457 

In the same MDPI journal, Vlasceanu et al 2020 was corrected in August 2025, because “Misplacement of two images occurred during the processing of the figure“. In another MDPI journal, Materials, Codreanu et al 2020 was corrected in September 2025 for “a mistake in Figure 9“, while Balas et al 2021 was corrected in September 2025 for “a mistake in the published form of Figure 3“. In December 2025, Cristian et al 2024 in Materials was corrected to address “an overlap in Figure 2 as published“, in all these cases “the scientific conclusions are unaffected“

This is her oldest flagged paper, MDPI also fixed it with a Correction:

Anca Hermenean , Cristina Popescu , Aurel Ardelean , Miruna Stan , Nicoleta Hadaruga , Ciprian-Valentin Mihali , Marieta Costache , Anca Dinischiotu Hepatoprotective Effects of Berberis vulgaris L. Extract/β Cyclodextrin on Carbon Tetrachloride–Induced Acute Toxicity in Mice International Journal of Molecular Sciences (2012) doi: 10.3390/ijms13079014 

The correction from 13 January 2026 informed:

“In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 9 as published. The subfigures B-3 and B-4 were mistakenly selected, due to a human error during figure preparation. The corrected Figure 9 appears below. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected.”

Images from the above paper re-appeared in this collaboration by Hermenean with colleagues in Spain and India:

Anca Hermenean , Teodora Mariasiu , Inmaculada Navarro-González , Josefina Vegara-Meseguer , Eftimie Miuțescu , Sandipan Chakraborty , Horacio Pérez-Sánchez Hepatoprotective activity of chrysin is mediated through TNF-α in chemically-induced acute liver damage: An in vivo study and molecular modeling Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine (2017) doi: 10.3892/etm.2017.4181 

In December 2025, Spandidos issued an Expression of Concern, which was now deleted. On 21 January 2026, a Corrigendum was published, where duplicated images were replaced:

“Subsequently to the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the authors’ attention that histological data featured in Fig. 3 on p. 1675, and one of the transmission electron microscopy images shown in Fig. 6 on p. 1678, were strikingly similar to data that had already appeared in a pair of publications featuring the first author on the paper (A. Hermenean); moreover, the histological images shown in Figs. 4B and 5B also appeared to contain an overlapping section, suggesting that these were derived from the same original source where the results from differently performed experiments were intended to have been portrayed. […]

After having re-examined their original data, the authors were able to identify where errors had inadvertently occurred in the assembly of these figures. […] Note that the revised data shown for these figures do not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper.”

Other publishers corrected Hermenean’s trash also:

Sorina Dinescu, Bianca Gălăţeanu, Mădălina Albu , Adriana Lungu , Eugen Radu , Anca Hermenean, Marieta Costache Biocompatibility assessment of novel collagen-sericin scaffolds improved with hyaluronic Acid and chondroitin sulfate for cartilage regeneration BioMed research international (2013) doi: 10.1155/2013/598056 

The correction from 22 June 2026 replaced the images in Figures 2 and 4 “due to an oversight by the authors during figure assembly”.

Maybe all those corrections were the precondition for an important transaction? Hermenean was recently showered with millions from EU grant money. As her Western University of Arad announced in April 2026:

“”Vasile Goldiș” University of Arad is participating in an 8.35 million euro European project that aims to develop chitosan, a biopolymer used in medicine, cosmetics and industry.

The project, called PIOChitIns, brings together research institutions and companies and aims to obtain chitosan from sustainable sources. The proposed solution uses the biomass of the Black Soldier Fly insect, whose larvae transform agri-food waste into useful substances, such as chitin, proteins and lipids.[…]

The university’s research activity is supported by […] the rector, prof. univ. dr. habil. Coralia Adina Cotoraci, and vice-rector Anca Hermenean […]

The consortium includes the “Petru Poni” Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry in Iași, Chemical Company SA, Vanelli Vet SRL and Tera & MTAS Consulting, along with the “Vasile Goldiș” University in Arad.”

Here some relevant chitosan research:

Sorina Dinescu, Mariana Ionita , Simona-Rebeca Ignat , Marieta Costache, Anca Hermenean Graphene Oxide Enhances Chitosan-Based 3D Scaffold Properties for Bone Tissue Engineering International Journal of Molecular Sciences (2019) doi: 10.3390/ijms20205077 

That was also corrected by MDPI, on 6 March 2026, to inform the readers that Marieta Costache cannot act as corresponding author anymore on account of “her passing in February 2024“, the new corresponding author being Sorina Dinescu. We are also told that an error in Figure 4 “occurred due to inadvertent selection of an image from the incorrect image folder during figure preparation“, but luckily “the scientific conclusions are unaffected“.

Finally, look at this travesty, which MDPI was too embarrassed to correct:

Mihaela Radu , Ioana Din , Anca Hermenean, Otilia Cinteză , Radu Burlacu , Aurel Ardelean , Anca Dinischiotu Exposure to Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Coated with Phospholipid-Based Polymeric Micelles Induces Biochemical and Histopathological Pulmonary Changes in Mice International Journal of Molecular Sciences (2015) doi: 10.3390/ijms161226173 

As mentioned, there’s much more such fake and not even corrected stuff on PubPeer.

---