Thomas Südhof and the standards of scientific rigor
Maarten van Kampen’s second attempt at hounding of Nobel papers.
By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
Maarten van Kampen’s second attempt at hounding of Nobel papers.
“Let me assure you that I totally condemn the war in Ukraine, and at the very least because my old mother is in Kharkiv and she suffers a lot… I am trying to help my colleagues and friends from Ukraine whichever way I can…” – Professor Kostya “Ken” Ostrikov
“together with my colleagues we are actively analyzing the points raised on pubpeer.” – Claudio Schneider
“we will evaluate Pubpeer comments” – Giannino Del Sal
“[Taurine’s] exact biological role is unclear, which is why Parames Sil and his students decided that it must be an antioxidant, and therefore the ideal treatment for cadmium- or arsenic-poisoning.” – Smut Clyde
“What exactly will Lash and Elsevier do with these 115 problematic papers? I can only expect a painfully inadequate response.” – Sholto David
“The board’s conclusion is therefore that the deviations regarding figure 2b and 2c in article 1 constitute serious deviations from good research practice”
The sad state of affairs of oncology drug discovery
“the entire dramatis personae seem to have crawled out of our man’s sock drawer, and the page-count of Synthetic Communications would be grievously impoverished without his contributions, whether direct or uncredited.”- Smut Clyde
” I will only confirm that every conclusion offered in papers on which I am one of the authors is sound and can be relied upon.” Francis Hornicek
Welcome to the the William Harvey Research Institute in London. Meet two proteges of its founder, the late Nobelist Sir John Vane: Chris Thiemermann and Mauro Perretti. Then meet their own rotten mentees, especially Salvatore Cuzzocrea and Jesmond Dalli.









