Research Misconduct Watch - Cisticola Tinniens

🚀On day five of our #Easteregghunt, the NCI maps boldly go where no maps have gone before! Join the intergalactic adventure at @ElsevierPhysics and explore the molecular cosmos with serotonin and partners🪐🔬paper: tinyurl.com/23ypa4y8📑PubPeer: tinyurl.com/3yjrrusw🕵️‍♂️

@Spottingthespot @supercritic @NaturePortfolio @SciReports I simply agree.

@supercritic @NaturePortfolio @SciReports Most of those you catch are the idiots. The ones that are good at it, you don't catch them.

And there it is, another retraction for #papermill #fraud Shafaqat Ali! This time in @NaturePortfolio, @SciReports! This idiot should get easily >50 retractions given he only published papers mill nonsense

@RetractionWatch Oh boy, Hitler Louis has the potential to reach the top spot on that leaderboard. Let's make it happen!🔥🚀

Chemist nears three dozen retractions for image duplication, self-citation and more. retractionwatch.com/2026/02/24/che…

One of the messages left on his Facebook wall encourages him to continue serving humanity. I am freaking nervous that he will fabricate more data and keeps publishing harmful research.

Let's join the international community and congratulate Innocent Benjamin, once the closer collaborator of papermiller Hitler Louis, on the award of an MSc in in Biotechnology with Distinction from the University of Portsmouth, UK. The world is a safer place now♥️.

Bad papers cannot stand long in the public eye. This @RSC_MolEng is the first of surely many more retractions of articles from @CompBioSim_NG published by @RoySocChem. Paper: doi.org/10.1039/D4ME00…, retraction notice: doi.org/10.1039/D5ME90…, PubPeer: pubpeer.com/publications/3…

@ShahFA_ @mumumouse2 For this very same reason I have decided to no do any more pre-publication peer-review. I do not know whether I am helping the author to hide their cheating or really improving the quality of the manuscript.

@mumumouse2 I recently reviewed a paper and here is what I reported and the editorial decision! Springer Nature 🤯

RSC are you for real lol

@ACS_Omega is kicking ass with the retraction of a paper with duplicated NCI maps by current students of @chemleedsuni, @portsmouthuni, @ClemsonUniv and staff member of @go2uj. Retraction: pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac…, paper: doi.org/10.1021/acsome…, PubPeer: pubpeer.com/publications/4…

Good catch! I haven't heard of 'raptorial journals' before. Fascinatingly, in this parallel scientific universe, "fake papers increase the quality problem", rather than the low-quality problem. But why is quality considered a 'problem' at all? 🤔

On the timescale of publishing, four years is just a drop in the ocean. Now, let’s imagine how long it might take for publishers to retract or at least correct all problematic articles, whether they’ve already been flagged or not.

Why are we focused on these tiny details? Surely the "solid" conclusions of this study aren't impacted by such humanly introduced artifacts! 🥳

Those hand-written IR spectra are already carved in stone. Future generations will look at them in awe, wondering what went wrong with scientific publishing.🤡

The irony of this video is that 5 days ago, @portsmouthuni was delisted as affiliation from a paper first-authored by the student afforded this media coverage. Corrigendum: doi.org/10.1016/j.mssp…; original paper: doi.org/10.1016/j.mssp…; and Pubpeer: pubpeer.com/publications/E…

@SpringerNature is leading the charge with the first of what will surely be many retractions for @Louismuzong from @chemleedsuni!🧪🚫Paper: tinyurl.com/bxdfpcdd Retraction: tinyurl.com/4w76hm78 PubPeer: pubpeer.com/publications/3… @RetractionWatch

@wool_yeah We should set a timer to see how long it takes the publisher to retract this beauty!

Unless I am drunk, the title is bonkers.

@Spottingthespot @MarkvLoosdrecht @deadneanderthal @MicrobiomDigest @mortenoxe @DavidSandersRep @maoviedogarcia @AskDrODR @Dr_5GH @jim_bouldin @IRWatchdog @FPapermill70800 @ArbitraryEffect @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @Thatsregrettab1 @wool_yeah @AbalkinaAnna @ancetetere @addictedtoigno1 This is very sarcastic, as the new handling editor is also a co-author!🥳🤡🤣!

@MarkvLoosdrecht @deadneanderthal @MicrobiomDigest @mortenoxe @DavidSandersRep @maoviedogarcia @AskDrODR @Dr_5GH @jim_bouldin @IRWatchdog @FPapermill70800 @ArbitraryEffect @mumumouse2 @SmutClyde @Thatsregrettab1 @RMisconductW @wool_yeah @AbalkinaAnna @ancetetere @addictedtoigno1 I also suspect that she was just listed due to her being the EIC giving the final 'ok' for publication. However, the point is that there is no correction issued. This give the idea they are trying to hide something.... Which is highly suspicious given the nature of the journal.

WTF did I just witness. The EIC of the @ElsevierConnect journal 'the journal of cleaner production' just removed her name as handling editor from a paper to avoid a serious conflict of interest. No correction issued. This is borderline #fraud. Journal known for #papermill crap

@Thatsregrettab1 @MattNachtrab This cassava, manihot esculenta?

Bullish! @MattNachtrab is on fire today. /s

@Spottingthespot @ChemistMhmdJ This is corruption at industrial scale!

@ChemistMhmdJ Absolutely not! He has now already 43 (!) retractions and all due to fraudulent peer review! For your convenience 4 examples are attached.

Don’t feel sorry for Mr. Ashok Pandey 😅

@TimKersjes and @SpringerNature please investigate this paper as the chemistry reported does not make sense. I wrote to you and Didem Sanver, the Associate Editor of BMC Chemistry, but have yet to receive a response.

Here is a good example of being actively targeted in the last two weeks by @PubPeer for a paper my lab published in 1998. The concern was just raised in 2024 but then PubPeer took down the link. This is not appropriate and also the journal @oncogenejournal is giving a deadline of 2 weeks to respond. There is no "Peer" in "PubPeer" and the selective targeting of scientists for what maybe a political agenda some of which is public raises concerns. PubPeer insinuates things that are damaging the reputation of scientists such as fraud, misconduct, data manipulation, lack of integrity and they do it publicly and anonymously. They go further by piling on concerns with no attention to whether the concerns have merit, whether they have any impact on results, whether the concerns are legitimate. They are doing this in an anonymous way seemingly with no accountability for the damage they are causing. They are targeting who they wish to target. There is no statute of limitations apparently. Any response that questions their authority or motives is met with "why don't you just respond to concerns" or "your response raises red flags." They do not take into account the passage of time, the movement of labs to different institutions, the movement of researchers including out of science altogether, or the need for time, effort, and money to properly address any concerns. Journals and publishers have not weighed in on statute of limitations, changes in how the field views data in 2024 vs 1998, or the process by which PubPeer conducts itself. What PubPeer is doing, in my opinion, defines academic terrorism, blackmail, defamation, and lack of due process and this is done by an anonymous mob that is unregulated. @Nature @MicrobiomDigest @oracknows @NIH @NIHDirector @theNCI @P_J_Buckhaults @DrJBhattacharya @HHS_ORI @theNAMedicine @ScienceMagazine