By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
“These skeezy fraud-friendly journals do have their uses. Once a papermill finds them, the fakes are concentrated in one place, undiluted by genuine research results, allowing a clear picture to crystallise and delineate its papermill style.” – Smut Clyde
“You may think this is just a silly prank with zero impact on whatsoever, but no. […] this initiative is useful for something. It provides solid numbers for quantifying the extent of scientific misconduct in Italy and beyond” – Aneurus Inconstans
“It is cowardly to be anonymous.
[…] This is harassment, for whatever benefit you will gain from this.
Please cease and desist” – David Goltzman
“My former and current lab members can attest that I have lectured the importance of scientific rigor and image rigor in our meetings several times each year.” – Andrew Z Wang
“WE DONT PAY FOR PAPERS. YOU MUST KNOW THAT THESE BEST IN THE PLANET JOURNALS GO THROUGH RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW” – Abhijit Dey, papermiller
“Every now and again, it is a good idea to open the door of the clown car that is MD Anderson, and see who climbs out. Today is the turn of Kapil N. Bhalla. If you say his name quickly, it sounds a bit like “capybara”” – Sholto David
“Would it be irresponsible to speculate that all these multiple sets of images being handed around from paper to paper all belong to a papermill? An artisanal, bespoke fabrication studio, catering to a select group of clients? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!” – Smut Clyde
“The Ethics Commission of the University of Ferrara, in
response to the request for opinion presented by Prof. Giorgio Zauli
(registered on 1 June 2018, Repertory no. 60/2018 – Prot.
n. 66968) does not detect any violations of the University Code of Ethics.”
From fake cancer research to fake ophthalmology – just follow Mitsi and Vassiliki and you’ll meet Dementios and other bad eye doctors, including a horrible German we hoped to never see again.
“The Board of Ethics and Scientific Integrity of University of Liège investigated the overlap between the aforementioned panels and recommended the article be corrected”
For Better Science