By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
Schneider Shorts 26.08.2022 – why an entire special issue got retracted, why Science editor won’t retract papers for fraud alone, with other amazing heroes of research integrity, a Swedish rector’s vanity, lab-grown meat and fish, Frontiers being silly again, and finally, a GoFundMe for a certain whiskey lover.
From Lesné’s public shame to successful role models of neuroscience like Aguzzi and Tessier-Lavigne.
The journal Science and the anthropology community manage an amazing feat of celebrating bullying, harassment and bad science while urinating upon Douglas Adams’ grave.
Autistic Neanderthal minibrains operating crab robots via brain waves of newborn babies are to be launched into outer space for the purpose of interstellar colonization. No, I am not insane. Science Has Spoken.
Who brought us COVID-19? The Neanderthals. The susceptibility to the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, but also to diabetes, obesity, allergies, skin diseases, smoking and autism all happened because your great-[…]-great-grandfather could not keep his todger in his trousers many thousands of years ago.
Star scientists Michel and Andre Nussenzweig come from a famous family of immunologists. Clare Francis looked at some of their papers.
Scholarly publishing is broken, and no repair is possible. At least let’s point fingers at the elites and laugh. Can science trust Science?
What better distraction than the COVID-19 pandemic to revive one of the spookiest parasites in cancer research? AACR uses the COVID-19 cover to award Michael Karin, for his over 50-paper-strong record of data fakery.
As one Nobelist retracted her Science paper, another Nobelist has stealthily corrected his. The correction opens new dimensions of probabilities and is indeed best kept hidden.
Royal Society of Chemistry published a research paper which unashamedly peddled TCM, under the title: “Probing the Qi of traditional Chinese herbal medicines by the biological synthesis of nano-Au”. Both Editor-in-Chief and publisher executive saw no problem there because the paper passed peer review.
For Better Science