By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
“I am Jorge de Burgos. I believe research should pause in searching for the progress of knowledge. Right now, we don’t need more papers, we rather need more knowledge by going through a continuous and sublime recapitulation to figure out what is true and what is fake” – Aneurus Inconstans
“This phenomenon is called “fraud with Photoshop”, dear Dr Wei.” – Aneurus Inconstans
“No matter if the data behind medical protocols and oncological treatments are imaginary! Since science is long dead, we can always rely on the haruspices.” – Aneurus Inconstans
A tale of brave academic editors fighting those bad, naughty, annoying anonymous whistleblower trolls
“If in any case we consider that the problems with the images really affected the validity of the results, we ourselves would ask the corresponding journal to retract the article.” – Prof Javier González-Gallego
“I feel that these continuous comments(s) may be pushing the boundaries, which should also be a concern for PubPeer.” – Dr Richard Vierstra
Either a Muslim colleague or a retired technician did it. Or so these Sicilian professors insist.
“These figures were elaborated by me personally and I remember quite well how I made them. Definitely, the images shown in this figure were cut and pasted from the originals in order to elaborate the figures, the overlapping was done “manually” using GIMP…” – Dr. José R Pérez-Castiñeira
“”Dear Aneurus Inconstans, thank you for your series of valuable suggestions. We will sincerely verify the matters pointed out. I’m sorry, many collaborators have already resigned from academia.”
“No, none of my data is forged.” – Ahmed Esmail Shalan
For Better Science