One Decade of For Better Science
Inclusive: For Better Science is 10 years old!
By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
Inclusive: For Better Science is 10 years old!
Schneider Shorts 24.10.2025 – minibrained autism quacks poison Neanderthals, two sleuths expose massive FDA fail, journalists reveal secret investigation in Canada, California fraudster gets a lucky correction, Australian scholar offers discounts, and finally, how to avoid death with love hormone!
Schneider Shorts 1.08.2025 – Norwegian university fights against retractions, obituary to an American giant, Indian retraction leads to cheaters in Wisconsin, with Turkey’s Elon Musk, some amusing corrections, and finally, with a sexually harassed sexual harasser in Spain!
Schneider Shorts 14.02.2025 – the Matthew Effect in Nobel retractions, Cambridge approves of papermilling, France rewards cheatery, with Karen and her mice, fake miRNA research in Canada, and finally, qualifications you need to get a top job in Switzerland.
Mu Yang and other sleuths celebrate the scholarly publishing business of the late T Nejat Veziroglu, laureate of Santilli-Galilei Gold Medal for Lifetime Commitment to True Scientific Democracy
“I like ImageTwin, but seeing things with just eyes is like hand-to-hand combat….” – Mu Yang
“I woke up seeing Elsevier’s giant middle finger in front of my face.” – Mu Yang
“Poking around PubMed (Dysdera the spider is always on the hunt for new hornet’s nests) [..], I came across one image in two papers by Eliezer Masliah. […] By a conservative count, I contributed to about 160 out of 300 slides in the final dossier” – Mu Yang
Schneider Shorts 20.09.2024 – A Californian man and his trusty clock, Oded’s Dad and other Israeli Scientists, first retractions for a French couple, an Indiana man and an Iranian papermiller, an Elsevier book facing removal, with funny corrections, ex-editor bemoaning a conspiracy and finally, with a concussion device getting pummelled.
Mu Yang catches two crooks, Ayman Atta and S Muthu, who flooded one Elsevier journal (and several others) with ridiculous hand-drawn fraud. Whom to believe, the peer review, or your own eyes?






