The Miracle-Polymer-Dumbsterfire
“Read the damn paper and look at the figures before publishing it; it’s not that hard” – Archasia belfragei
Tag: China
A stupid and foolish question
“Those noises have no scientific meanings, suggest nothing, forming no any judgments, and have no any influences on the experimental results. ” – Professor Deng‐Guang Yu
Slipshod Self-service Ethnopharmacology
“Since Journal of Ethnopharmacology sees no reason to reject bear bile powder research like other scientific journals, that means you can expect to see anything there” – Parashorea tomentella
Heads and hearts
“Imagine what effect might ensue from a young donor body (say, in her 20’s) nourishing with her young blood 24/24, 7/7 the head of an aging body recipient!” – Sergio Canavero
Grinding slowly but exceeding small
“I have no idea what is happening here, but fortunately it is not my job to adjudicate questions of who stole what from whom.” – Smut Clyde
With Random Precision
“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
Schneider Shorts 5.07.2024 – The Dark and Unexpected Side of Scientific Publishing
a biotech fraudster indicted, a Swedish rector can’t stop papermilling, Oncotarget’s chief editor maliciously targeted, PLOS afraid of Italians but not of French, polluted journal cleaned up, a Texan paper falls, and finally, Chinese robots with minibrains ready to attack!
“They happened before I joined Uppsala University”
“There are therefore grounds for suspecting that there have been such serious deviations from good research practice that the matter should be referred to the National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct for further investigation.”
David Goltzman’s cowardice
“It is cowardly to be anonymous.
[…] This is harassment, for whatever benefit you will gain from this.
Please cease and desist” – David Goltzman
MIT review closed and decision final
“MIT’s receipt and review of allegations of possible research misconduct by my office are treated as confidential under MIT and, to the extent applicable, federal policies. MIT does not intend to
disclose its receipt and review of these allegations to others. By the same token, you therefore may not disclose to others that you brought your concern to the VPR’s attention, or the outcome of MIT’s review of the concern.” Letter to Maarten van Kampen
For Better Science 