Thomas Südhof and the standards of scientific rigor
Maarten van Kampen’s second attempt at hounding of Nobel papers.
By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
Maarten van Kampen’s second attempt at hounding of Nobel papers.
“together with my colleagues we are actively analyzing the points raised on pubpeer.” – Claudio Schneider
“we will evaluate Pubpeer comments” – Giannino Del Sal
“What exactly will Lash and Elsevier do with these 115 problematic papers? I can only expect a painfully inadequate response.” – Sholto David
“The board’s conclusion is therefore that the deviations regarding figure 2b and 2c in article 1 constitute serious deviations from good research practice”
The sad state of affairs of oncology drug discovery
“Dear colleagues, scientists, check your lab members’ raw data, publications, and dissertations even more thoroughly than before to protect scientific ethics and data integrity and maintain trust in science!” – Ingrid Herr
” I will only confirm that every conclusion offered in papers on which I am one of the authors is sound and can be relied upon.” Francis Hornicek
Welcome to the the William Harvey Research Institute in London. Meet two proteges of its founder, the late Nobelist Sir John Vane: Chris Thiemermann and Mauro Perretti. Then meet their own rotten mentees, especially Salvatore Cuzzocrea and Jesmond Dalli.
“The only difficult part might be deciding whether Ken has been intentionally deceptive or wildly incompetent, although the difference in practice doesn’t seem so important.” – Sholto David
Rumour goes that liver researchers Gianfranco Alpini and his lady friend Heather Francis left Indiana University. While they remain silent, their PubPeer record speaks volumes.









