Follow us on Bluesky
  1. Bluesky Feeds /
  2. Steve Haroz /
  3. Scientific Comments
Scientific Comments

Scientific Comments

by Steve Haroz Steve Haroz

Use #SciComment or link to pubpeer.com or retractionwatch.com to include a post in this feed. Rules: No personal insults or bigotry. No non-scientific criticism or conspiracy theories.

Feed on Bluesky

Feeds Stats

  • 💙 Liked by 17 users
  • 📅 Updated over 1 year ago
  • ⚙️ Provider skyfeed.me

Scientific Comments Likes over time

Like count prediction
The feed Scientific Comments gains approximately 2 likes per month.

Feed Preview for Scientific Comments

Longtail News
@longtail.news
12 minutes ago
Feed: "Retraction Watch" By: Lori Youmshajekian on Thursday, October 30, 2025
Widespread image reuse, manipulation uncovered in animal studies of brain injury

retractionwatch.com

Widespread image reuse, manipulation uncovered in animal studies of brain injury

One of the papers in the analysis contained a figure (bottom) found to have overlap with other work by the same author (top). Both papers have been retracted. Annotated images: PubPeer More than 20…
0
0
0
Retraction Watch
@retractionwatch.com
about 1 hour ago
The problems were so pervasive they abandoned their review and instead began investigating how widespread image duplication was in their field. Widespread image reuse, manipulation uncovered in animal studies of brain injury
Widespread image reuse, manipulation uncovered in animal studies of brain injury

retractionwatch.com

Widespread image reuse, manipulation uncovered in animal studies of brain injury

One of the papers in the analysis contained a figure (bottom) found to have overlap with other work by the same author (top). Both papers have been retracted. Annotated images: PubPeer More than 20…
0
7
16
Larry Clapp is undead
@theclapp.bsky.social
about 3 hours ago
retractionwatch.com/2025/….
Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

retractionwatch.com

Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

Hermann/Pixabay Following our coverage this summer of a book with citations that did not exist, we asked you to send us examples of other books with similar issues. One reader took the request as a…
0
0
0
Mu Yang, Ph.D.
@mumumouse2.bsky.social
about 4 hours ago
Wiley: "After a detailed analysis of the concerns for each remaining article, we did not find anything to require further action on these articles. ......As such, we are now closing our investigation." Me: yeah but what about the O peaks at 8.5 KeV ....😅 pubpeer.com/publications...
0
0
0
Dorothy Bishop
@deevybee.bsky.social
about 4 hours ago
deevybee.blogspot.com/202….

deevybee.blogspot.com

An open letter regarding Scientific Reports

16th October 2024  to: Mr Chris Graf Research Integrity Director, Springer Nature and Chair Elect of the World Conference...

Reddit: "Is Scientific Reports becoming the new MDPI?" 🔗: www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademi...

Does anyone notice a drop in the quality of the peer-review and editorial process over at Nature's Scientific Reports journal over the last few years? In my case, in the past 2 years members of my faculty have published 8 papers in Scientific Reports. Although these papers vary in quality and impact, they are not necessarily bad. However, the peer-review process for many of them seems to have been a complete sham. For instance: - 2 of the papers were reviewed by a single reviewer - 3 other papers' reviews were delivered within 2 weeks of submission and consisted of basic softball questions that can be addressed literally within 20 minutes Both of those points are extremely unusual for my field where reviews typically take months and usually include requests for additional data, more detailed analyses, and significant pushback from reviewers. I was so taken aback by the handling of these papers that I started to wonder if Scientific Reports are willing to sacrifice scientific rigor for collecting their processing fee ASAP?
Their entire shtick is that whatever you send them, it will get published unless it is outright wrong. In some cases I've seen papers rejected but only if they were a 1:1 rehash of existing work. IMO, there was a need for this kind of thing to be offered by a reputable publisher. In most academic careers there comes a time when you think you had a brilliant idea but perhaps it just didn't quite work out, or it sits awkwardly between the disciplines, or it's a bit whacky, and so on. And you know you can just skip the endless guantlet of traditional journals and send it to Sci Rep instead. In my field, 9 out of 10 paper reviews don't come down to the quality of the work itself but to the question of whether the manuscript is appropriate for the respective journal. (This of course is supposed to be the editor's job, but in reality it is done by the referees). Once you remove that discussion, unless a paper is clearly nonsense or AI-slop, then what is there to say? And that's why many people turned away from reviewing for Sci Rep, it can be quite frustrating to review low-quality work but you can't reject it based on journal guidelines. Hence you will end up with lots of one-person reviews.
1
5
3
Zoe
@meso-zo-ic.bsky.social
about 4 hours ago
How we all felt after the research the rules of spiders were based on was found to be falsified :( retractionwatch.com/2023/….
Spider researcher Jonathan Pruitt faked data in multiple papers, university finds

retractionwatch.com

Spider researcher Jonathan Pruitt faked data in multiple papers, university finds

Jonathan Pruitt An investigation at McMaster University found that Jonathan Pruitt, a behavioral ecologist by training who has had 15 papers retracted in the last three years, “engaged in fabricati…
0
0
1
Lauren Schneider
@lauren-schneider.com
about 4 hours ago
Shout out to @youmshajekian.bsky.social for additional reporting with @retractionwatch.com.
0
0
2
Fabian Wittmers - PubPeer: Archasia Belfragei
@academic-integrity.bsky.social
about 6 hours ago
More 'science' by the same Canadian team: Nabipour et al. 2025 (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.140027). pubpeer.com/publications... Plenty more anomalies and issues flagged by various others on PubPeer; too much to blame it on a student or undergrad.

Some interesting data coming out of this Canadian research group: Nabipour et al. 2024 (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128875) - University of Western Ontario seem to have hired some (photoshop) experts cosplaying as 'scientists' pubpeer.com/publications...

1
2
4
Fabian Wittmers - PubPeer: Archasia Belfragei
@academic-integrity.bsky.social
about 6 hours ago
Some interesting data coming out of this Canadian research group: Nabipour et al. 2024 (DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128875) - University of Western Ontario seem to have hired some (photoshop) experts cosplaying as 'scientists' pubpeer.com/publications...
0
0
1
Cactus Communications
@cactusglobal.bsky.social
about 6 hours ago
Responsible research demands visibility. Paperpal Preflight for Editorial Desk confirms that consent and data availability statements accompany every manuscript, ensuring transparency before publication. #ResearchIntegrity #Halloween
0
0
0
STM
@stmassoc.bsky.social
about 7 hours ago
Scholarly publishing touches everyone—even if they don’t know it. Our new primer breaks down #peerreview, #researchintegrity, #openresearch practices & more—core to how trustworthy research reaches the world. Give our new microsite a tour: stm-assoc.org/publishing_d... #scholarlypublishing
Video thumbnail
Play button
0
0
0
Digital Science
@digital-science.com
about 8 hours ago
We may not see dead people - but in this new blog post from Leslie McIntosh, there are ghosts aplenty: "Pepper's Ghosts" of research organizations that never were or will be. 👻 How do these apparitions haunt the realm of #ResearchIntegrity? 🔗 Find out: ow.ly/RFMW50Xkm9s #Halloween2025
0
3
3
Floor Boek
@floorboek.bsky.social
about 14 hours ago
Someone wrote a Python script - in I assume his spare time - to detect false references. Very interesting, but it also makes me wonder why publishers haven't already tried this themselves? Seems a lot more efficient than manually screening references retractionwatch.com/2025/….
Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

retractionwatch.com

Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

Hermann/Pixabay Following our coverage this summer of a book with citations that did not exist, we asked you to send us examples of other books with similar issues. One reader took the request as a…
0
0
3
Katja Petzold
@katjapetzold.bsky.social
about 14 hours ago
One more paper by the “in-cell” NMR person looking weird. pubpeer.com/publications...

pubpeer.com

PubPeer - Biophysical and transcriptomic characterization of LL-37-der...

There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Biophysical and transcriptomic characterization of LL-37-derived antimicrobial peptide targeting multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli and ESKAPE pathogen...
0
1
4
World Conferences on Research Integrity
@wcrifoundation.bsky.social
about 20 hours ago
Lawsuit Targeting Decades-Old Journal Article Triggers Renewed Scrutiny of Fraudulent Scientific Studies #ResearchIntegrity #Science #Research #WCRI2026 #WCRI publichealthpolicyjournal….
Lawsuit Targeting Decades-Old Journal Article Triggers Renewed Scrutiny of Fraudulent Scientific Studies - Science, Public Health Policy and the Law

publichealthpolicyjournal.com

Lawsuit Targeting Decades-Old Journal Article Triggers Renewed Scrutiny of Fraudulent Scientific Studies - Science, Public Health Policy and the Law

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
0
0
0
@lizthegringa.bsky.social
1 day ago
Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books retractionwatch.com/2025/….
Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

retractionwatch.com

Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

Hermann/Pixabay Following our coverage this summer of a book with citations that did not exist, we asked you to send us examples of other books with similar issues. One reader took the request as a…
0
0
0
Nate Breznau
@breznaunate.bsky.social
1 day ago
#openscience nice one @retractionwatch.com retractionwatch.com/2025/….
Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

retractionwatch.com

Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

Hermann/Pixabay Following our coverage this summer of a book with citations that did not exist, we asked you to send us examples of other books with similar issues. One reader took the request as a…
0
0
0
Science Integrity Alliance
@sci-integrity.com
1 day ago
📗 The new issue of REACH Magazine is almost here! 🔍 Featuring insights on the future of peer review, updated guidance on research misconduct oversight, science sleuthing with Lonni Besançon, WCRI history, and more. 👀 Stay tuned! #REACHmagazine #SIA #ResearchIntegrity
0
1
1
@zork-o-matic.bsky.social
1 day ago
retractionwatch.com/2025/….
Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

retractionwatch.com

Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books

Hermann/Pixabay Following our coverage this summer of a book with citations that did not exist, we asked you to send us examples of other books with similar issues. One reader took the request as a…
0
0
0
Cactus Communications
@cactusglobal.bsky.social
1 day ago
Conflicts left unspoken can cast long shadows. Paperpal Preflight for Editorial Desk verifies that all competing-interest statements are complete, allowing editors to maintain the neutrality essential to credible publishing. #ResearchIntegrity #Halloween
0
0
0
Irene Hames
@irenehames.bsky.social
1 day ago
There are now so many types of #researchpublication fakery. Here #papermills boosting their profiles and credibility by creating fake reviewers who also appear as authors on other papers - a “stable of fake scientists” with publication histories. #publicationethics #researchintegrity

Journals are considering doing identity checks to expose fake authors — but there are downsides go.nature.com/4hqvw6F

go.nature.com
0
0
1
The Cochrane Collaboration
@cochrane.org
1 day ago
What is Cochrane doing to strengthen research integrity? From preprints & ORCID recognition to AI standards & retraction tracking, we’re advancing how trustworthy evidence is created & shared. Find out more: www.cochrane.org/about-us…. #ResearchIntegrity
0
0
0
Caroline Ball
@heroicendeavour.bsky.social
1 day ago
Projects like @pubpeer.com @openbookcollective.bsky.social @pubpublic.bsky.social @openlibhums.org @scipost.bsky.social and @cos.io are already experimenting with community-driven publishing - AO3 shows how these ideas could fit together into a single, collaborative ecosystem.
1
0
1
Elena Alonso
@elenalonso.bsky.social
1 day ago
Pubpeer: the social media of papers. 📋Paste the DOI. 🖥️Read the comments or comment yourself on the paper. pubpeer.com

pubpeer.com

PubPeer - Search publications and join the conversation.

PubPeer enables scientists to search for their publications or their peers publications and provide feedback and/or start a conversation anonymously.
0
0
0