The papers which faked themselves
“These papers breached the Australian Code and RMIT Research Policy by not ensuring that conclusions are justified by the results and not responsibly
disseminating research findings.” RMIT investigative report
Tag: chemistry
[Citation not needed]
“Even university management eventually realised that self-citations of your work, in your own papers, shouldn’t really count (“see ‘Toenail Clipping Microphotographs, Part 1’, S, Clyde 2018″). So people progressed to citation cabals among cronies, referring to each other’s work” – Smut Clyde
Anatomy of a Retraction
From “analysis and conclusion of our paper remain valid” via drafted correction to “the authors retract this publication”. A guest post by Maarten van Kampen.
Longwei Yin corrections, or what’s the point anyway
“I just want to cry right now. I cannot fight this corruption by myself. ” – Elisabeth Bik
Polymer Papermillers Taking the Piss
Papermill Industry enters its Logical Growth Phage. Smut Clyde explains what coordination polymer chemistry has to do with chickenshit.
The One-Man Papermill
“No, none of my data is forged.” – Ahmed Esmail Shalan
Smut Clyde’s Flying Circus
And now for something completely different.
Moravian Rhapsody
“Please, can you tell me more about the web page and mechanism behind? Is there any “scheme” of scanning published papers?” asks Professor Vojtech Adam. Yes, it’s Elisabeth Bik.
Bad Choices in Dresden
“There is no reason for an investigation into scientific misconduct and therefore it will not take place.”
Student, Meet Bus
What led to retraction of the Sensei RNA paper by Arati Ramesh in Bangalore: the “factually inaccurate, anonymous, and unverified” version, which “quite frankly, can be termed slander”.
And a guest post by “Paul Jones” at the end!
For Better Science 