Catherine Teresa

Scientist

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@Spottingthespot @MicrobiomDigest @ZENODO_ORG @EUCouncil @EU_Commission @CERN This is the nature of your overactive imagination and lack of realism. You're either on my side or you're with them, working with them and having connections with them. This is always the way of fools and weaklings.

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@fake_journals @LiangChengMD But still among the highest records! There is nothing wrong with his claim

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@MicrobiomDigest @Spottingthespot @ZENODO_ORG @EUCouncil @EU_Commission @CERN Simply No.
But this does not mean that I should not say the correct thing that I believe, when I observe a wrong thing

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@Spottingthespot @MicrobiomDigest @ZENODO_ORG @EUCouncil @EU_Commission @CERN Hhhhh. You can. It is the weak who do that. Go ahead

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@Spottingthespot @MicrobiomDigest @ZENODO_ORG @EUCouncil @EU_Commission @CERN "I left the nonsense and stupidity to you."

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@Spottingthespot @MicrobiomDigest @ZENODO_ORG @EUCouncil @EU_Commission @CERN We can't judge whether it is paper mill or not, without strong evidence. The mistakes in references do not warrant retraction, especially if the authors clarified the relevance of each cited reference.

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@Spottingthespot @ZENODO_ORG @MicrobiomDigest @EUCouncil @EU_Commission @CERN I agree with authors and endorse their complaint. This is a good opportunity 👏, as it doesn't merit retraction. They can simply initiate corrigendum for these simple things.

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@fake_journals @SciGuardians I don't trust many known sleuths. Most of them are NOT respectful and non-expert. I found several of sleuths' comments scientifically wrong. Several comments are not important at all, or mistakes are not significant, etc... Sometimes they are attacking the scientist, not the work

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@MicrobiomDigest @addictedtoigno1 @maoviedogarcia @Thatsregrettab1 @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals Thank you. I am also surprised.

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

I saw many wrong comments on Pubpeer, butPubpeer did publish my responses or clarifications on the wrong comments. This raises a lot of questions about who is controlling the platform and what their objectives!!! @pubpeer18097 @PubPeerChat @PubPeerBot @PubpeerFollower

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@mumumouse2 @Thatsregrettab1 @addictedtoigno1 @MicrobiomDigest @maoviedogarcia @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals @thatsregrettab1 When you are able to scientifically judge works, then we can open a long discussion. This is the reason why you blocked me. You like only people to say: good, you are correct, I agree with you.... even if the so-called sleuths are WRONG !!!

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@mumumouse2 @Thatsregrettab1 @addictedtoigno1 @MicrobiomDigest @maoviedogarcia @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals Very simple, because you didn't like my responses to some wrong comments that some sleuthts shared, like these examples. There are no any other reasons. You like only people who are on your side. You are "biased" people. Why didn't you reply scientifically to my clarifications.

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@addictedtoigno1 @MicrobiomDigest @maoviedogarcia @Thatsregrettab1 @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals Only a few examples:
https://t.co/ttQdvM8FW0
https://t.co/fkQfVYXY41

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@addictedtoigno1 @MicrobiomDigest @maoviedogarcia @Thatsregrettab1 @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals Ok, not very important. It will not change anything. It looks like pubpeer founders and people engaged with them have a certain "unclear" objective. I provided the comment and the reply!? I don't know what is not clear here 😕 😐
Some links are below, let's see what you will say?

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@addictedtoigno1 @MicrobiomDigest @maoviedogarcia @Thatsregrettab1 @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals Before light irradiation, the mixture of dye solution and catalyst are kept under dark (without light). During this period, an equilibrium will be established by them. So, absorbance will decrease. So, Abs at 0 min when light is turned on will differ from each sample to another.

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@addictedtoigno1 @MicrobiomDigest @maoviedogarcia @Thatsregrettab1 @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals You are wrong. Below is one of the comments that I replied to. My response is very clear: "The values at 0 min do not represent the initial dye concentration. It represents the concentration of the dye when the light is turned on after dark conditions." What is wrong here!!?

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@MicrobiomDigest @addictedtoigno1 @maoviedogarcia @Thatsregrettab1 @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals Is this reply inflammatory or non-factual? It is just a clarification for the misunderstanding, showing that the comment is wrong. I found almost the same wrong comment for many articles. Could you show what is inflammatory or non-factual in my response!?

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@addictedtoigno1 @maoviedogarcia @Thatsregrettab1 @mumumouse2 @MicrobiomDigest @SmutClyde @SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals There are comments and clarifications from my side that were not published by Pubpeer

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@addictedtoigno1
@maoviedogarcia
@Thatsregrettab1
@mumumouse2
@MicrobiomDigest
@SmutClyde
@ArbitraryEffect
@SciGuardians @DayoMaor @fake_journals

[Catherine Teresa @Catherine38954]

@AbalkinaAnna
@wool_yeah
@fake_journals
@snarula2
@PredatoryReport
@PaoloCrosetto
@innostudy
@deevybee
@gcabanac
@Layallivs
@COPE
@nickwizzo
@Clarivate
@TimKersjes
@SmutClyde
@BarbaraLancho
@ClearSkiesAdam
@4BetterScience
@danbrockington
@DrNandiQ
@DalmeetS
@Richvn
@joelving