A random cat

A fluffy beastie. Curious about the dark side of science.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

Did you know that 2025 Nature papers are not as hot as 2025 papers in... Separation and Purification Technology?

Congratulations, @ElsevierConnect - shameless fraud pays off!

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

While the modern world of industry and the train of progress move on the rails of time, it frees itself from moral-extraterrestrial constraints to achieve the ideas of humanism and the absolute rule of human beings over the world.

--

@SpringerNature own your crap.

[Cheshire @Thatsregrettab1]

Happy Friday, to those who celebrate.

https://t.co/IPfV36tzvr

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@MicrobiomDigest @addictedtoigno1 @Thatsregrettab1 @lonnibesancon @PubPeer Would be happy to try, but - according to my experience - won't pass moderation.

In any case, I don't think that "resounding crescendo" is part of this field's standard vocabulary.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

Absolute mockery, fockery and butt-talk published in Small.

This should have never been published in the first place. And now, that it is published anyway, a swift retraction is in order.

Unlikely to happen. Because @WileyGlobal and Elizabeth Moylan.

https://t.co/S0nxJ3O26e

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

An alternative take. The price is fair for the qualifications.

No credits for @ElsevierConnect for seeking junk reviewers for junk content.

Nor any credits for the professor with a yearly output of 100s pcs, a mix of proclamations, meta-analyses of anything and GBD shitefest.

[Professor Azeem Majeed @Azeem_Majeed]

I was asked by the academic publisher Elsevier if I could review a 15-page proposal for a book on AI and provide feedback by answering 23 questions. For this work, they offered $100 (£75). It’s unsurprising that Elsevier’s parent company has annual profits of over £1,000 million.

[Sholto David @addictedtoigno1]

Authors include an employee of a Romanian seat belt manufacturer. Doesn't inspire confidence.

[Cheshire @Thatsregrettab1]

Happy Friday, for those who celebrate.

https://t.co/pWMeZh1Z4O

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@MicrobiomDigest @Thatsregrettab1 @addictedtoigno1 @lonnibesancon https://t.co/GtdM24HBvk plus some insider help from good folks as to how to get access.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

Not long ago I stumbled upon a paper. My impression that not everything there is quite right. @PubPeer moderation disagrees, so it's now up to the community's judgment.

Here is the paper:
https://t.co/nWvNzRBZqL

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@MicrobiomDigest @addictedtoigno1 @lonnibesancon @Thatsregrettab1 Please go ahead. I am not gambling for a second week-long wait to get the comment moderated again.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@Thatsregrettab1 @MicrobiomDigest @addictedtoigno1 @lonnibesancon Got the approval. Matches rats, not humans. But issued to a certain Fatemeh Khatami, who is not an author.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

Tagging

@MicrobiomDigest
@addictedtoigno1
@lonnibesancon
@Thatsregrettab1

and whoever still stays at this barren place.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

Then there is Figure 7, which is a box-and-whiskers plot. That most definitely shows min, max and quartiles, not mean and SD.

What "of three independent experiments" means here, is up to one's guess. The text is silent.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@Spottingthespot @AjmanUniversity Not a word whether this private company (Solar-something-something from Japan) exists and why that would employ a Hamid Farajian.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@SocialImpurity Hair-splitting. The link shows that 300 people were aware about Cofnas.

As for misconduct, https://t.co/rXesY9RWf4 amounts to assertion of misconduct under current U Ghent code.

Controversy? Just as much as in the Arday case. What did LJMU say? No plagiarism, just insinuations.

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@SocialImpurity Par. 17: "take into account the potential that their research methods or results could, in the future, serve unethical purposes or cause harm to persons, communities or their environment"

[A random cat @wool_yeah]

@SocialImpurity U Ghent Ethical Code:

Par. 8: adherence to ALLEA
-> ALLEA par. 2.3: "protocols ... are sensitive to ... relevant differences among research participants"
-> ALLEA par. 2.3: "report their results ... compatible with the accepted norms of the discipline"