Excellent proposal, high novelty, independent PI with outstanding productivity....and did not get funding. Thank you for many good words, but I prefer money.
I found a clear case of fraud data in revision of paper and reported it to editor with a "decline" decision. Editor returned me paper back with even more manipulated images. Why should I spent my time if publishers just want to get APC ?
China has selected its first group of young researchers to receive funding for up to 15 years, in one of the longest research grants on offer to scientists globally
https://t.co/6RnYWeNs6e
Today one of my colleagues' paper was found published in an Asian journal with a completely new authors list. Apparently this journal make it repeatedly, and every 2nd paper is copy-past from some random European paper without mentioning the real team of the project.
A study of 110,303 manuscript submissions to two elite research journals has identified factors during the editorial and peer review stages that impact whether a paper is accepted for publication. https://t.co/xUGdwiWUrt
Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson and Omar M. Yaghi have been awarded the 2025 #NobelPrize in Chemistry for the development of a new type of molecular architecture.
In 1989, chemistry laureate Richard Robson tested utilising the inherent properties of atoms in a new way. He combined positively charged copper ions with a four-armed molecule; this had a chemical group that was attracted to copper ions at the end of each arm.
When they were combined, they bonded to form a well-ordered, spacious crystal. It was like a diamond filled with innumerable cavities.
Today Springer-Nature community renamed my role from "Trusted Reviewer" to "Reviewing Editor". Nothing changes in responsibility, just a fun title for a CV.
Today I signed a Sanctions Compliance Certification confirming I’m not affiliated with US sanctioned Russian organization (MIPT) and can publish paper in ACS journals. But how many years will rejections follow me just because I was a physics student in 2021?
Found one of my papers on PubPeer. A user flagged a real mistake in the Supplementary (we’ll share raw data, thanks!)—but is it fair to anonymously post 10+ claims about “missing scale bars” in places where they aren’t even needed?