Science journalism by Leonid Schneider, on research integrity and academic publishing in life sciences and biomedicine
“The Board assesses that there are no scientifically acceptable explanations for why the notified researchers have fabricated research results in the manner that has occurred in the notified articles. Raw data also does not support the reported results. [..]
In summary, the Board finds therefore that the notified researchers have been guilty of misconduct in research.”
EU Commission gives €6 million to an obscure German start-up, promising to convert sewage to synthetic fuels. Internet sources suggest behind all this is “Professor” Ruggiero Santilli, the litigious “Florida Genius”, eternally self-appointed Nobel Prize candidate and sock-
puppeteering businessman. Exactly the kind of “fringe scientist” Smut Clyde likes to write about!
“…there are no longer any batches of the palladium used by Fleischmann and Pons (because the supplier now uses a different manufacturing process)…” -FuF wisdom
Cold Fusion is back, and EU Commission now funds it with €10 million. One project specifically builds on Fleischmann and Pons, the other is run by Italy’s most notorious Cold Fusion loon, Francesco Celani.
“All these SEM, EDX, TEM, BET, XRD, FT-IR, and contact angles in the theses and papers from our lab, where do they come from? We made them up. “
Erick Carreira’s letter to Guido, from 1996. You all saw it probably at some point, and now it’s being discussed again.
Fake nanotechnology is always fun, but it does get extreme here. Word of advice: if you are in Turkey, better don’t point fingers at Professor Fatih Sen’s research. Things get broken easily.
This is a guest post by two whistleblowers from the Palacky University in Olomouc. In the centre of the growing research misconduct and retaliation scandal: the nanotechnology professor Radek Zboril
Linköping University has another potential research misconduct case, again in material sciences. Four papers by LiU professors Ömer Nur and Magnus Willander are questioned on PubPeer
As one Nobelist retracted her Science paper, another Nobelist has stealthily corrected his. The correction opens new dimensions of probabilities and is indeed best kept hidden.
