By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
“While papermills certainly pollute the literature the most in terms of numbers, I believe the spotlight should equally be on questionable research groups at top institutions, whose articles might have an even larger negative impact on society” – Aneurus Incostans
Schneider Shorts 11.07.2025 – an insulted, slandered and harassed Italian man in Zurich, a Saudi-sponsored Belgian man in Lausanne, with more Swiss (and British) correctness, more Nobel retractions, and finally, with a moa and mammoth safari on Mars.
Schneider Shorts 26.07.2024 – a sleuth conference in Porto, one cat’s week of fame, retractions for various famous luminaries in UK, USA and Switzerland, and finally, a Jesus miracle of turning old mice into supermodels.
Schneider Shorts 16.02.2024 – a doctor sacked for death of patients cures cancer in Austria, science with sell-by date, Italian geniuses cracking cancer, autism and Alzheimer’s, mass retraction of totalitarian science, an incomplete Frontiers retraction, and finally, a Ukrainian genius betrayed by Iranian friends.
The prion researcher Adriano Aguzzi used to describe his Pubpeer critics as “lowlifes”, and himself as a victim of a lynch mob. But after Elisabeth Bik helped him find even more mistakes in his papers, Aguzzi changed his stance.
Too many scientists defend the practice of not probing for loading controls for each protein gel. They say a “library” method perfectly suffices, when one separate loading control gel is run once for reference. Such sloppiness can sometimes be a hint of even worse practices taking place.
For Better Science