Adam Marcus, Agustin Armendariz, American Association of Cancer Research, Anonymous Commenter, Carlo Croce, Character Assassination, Clare Francis, Corruption, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, Fernando Pessoa (Retraction Watch), First Amendment to US Constitution, Fraud, Ivan Oransky, James Glanz, New York Times, NIH funding, Office of Research Integrity, Ohio Southern District Court, Ohio State University, Paul S. Thaler, Post Publication Peer Review Scam, PubPeer, Reporting Retractions, Reputation Damage, Retraction Watch, Scientific corruption, Scientific Integrity, Scientific Misconduct, Scientific publication

Carlo Croce sued The New York Times; he should not spare Retraction Watch

Carlo M. Croce is a towering figure in cancer genetics. His discovery of the molecular mechanisms in leukemia and other malignancies places him in the league of pioneers in the field like Janet Rowley. Croce’s peers have recognized his contributions, elected him to the US National Academy of Science in 1996 and showered him with prizes. Notwithstanding his success, concerns about the integrity of Croce’s work are surfacing and certain people seem to be now investing in his downfall. A while back, MIT Nobel laureate Philip Sharp praised him but detected some sloppiness in his work, while UC Berkeley Nobel laureate Randy Schekman claimed that as editor he became aware of certain allegations concerning Croce’s research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

InBev+Baillet+Latour+Awards+de+la+Sante+2013+rT6H1wjTGQHl

The 2013 prize of the Artois-Baillet Latour Foundation given by HRH The Queen of Belgium to Carlo M. Croce.

Croce’s fall from grace happened when he was defamed in an article published in the New York Times on March 8 of this year. The authors of the article, James Glanz and Agustin Armendariz, tell us that Croce had been dodging misconduct allegations for decades, and that a major cover-up was put up by Ohio State University (OSU), Croce’s home institution, because he was bringing millions of dollars in grant overhead each year. Glanz and Armendariz tell us that Croce, the discoverer of cancer mechanisms that saved the lives of thousands, had been cheating all along but “was too big to make findings of misconduct on”.

The entire scientific community was in a state of shock at what seemed to be a flagrant act of defamation. In America, as in most countries under the rule of law, Croce should be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, and his innocence should be protected at all cost, as it seemed to have been the case with OSU’s internal investigation. It came as a shock to everybody that these unresolved or closed investigations would be exposed in a major venue like the NYT, destroying in one stroke Croce’s reputation earned through decades of hard work. Yet, most of the scientific community dismissed these unproven allegations: on March 29, a few days after the defamatory article appeared in the NYT, the American Association of Cancer Research made Carlo Croce the recipient of the Margaret Foti Award for Leadership and Extraordinary Achievements in Cancer Research.  Not surprisingly, this recognition emboldened Croce. Carlo Croce sued the NYT in Court for defamation a few weeks later. The particulars of the lawsuit are as follows:

Croce v. New York Times Company et al (case filed May 10, 2017)

Ohio Southern District Court
Judge: James L Graham
Referred: Terence P Kemp
Case #: 2:17-cv-00402
Nature of Suit 320 Torts – Personal Injury – Assault, Libel, & Slander
Cause 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

The lingering question is who instigated the NYT article and emboldened Glanz and Armindariz? Why would Glanz and Armendariz risk everything to go after a towering figure in cancer research, whose discoveries saved thousands of lives, with nothing more that conjectures and unproven allegations over sloppiness in reporting or conducting scientific research? Glanz and Armendariz were fueled, emboldened, enabled and inspired by a blog name Retraction Watch, the true instigator of Carlo Croce’s downfall and, specifically, of the NYT defamation piece.

Retraction Watch purportedly reports on scientific misconduct. Yet Retraction Watch is engaged in the most corrupt and less transparent scheme imaginable. To generate enough activity, the Retraction Watch founders created two anonymous characters, giving them writers’ names: Clare Francis and Fernando Pessoa. Clare Francis operates in secrecy, while Fernando Pessoa operates in the open. Unchecked allegations, including all kinds of inanities, personal attacks, etc. are first received by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, the two medicine/science dropouts who founded Retraction Watch. Then, Oransky and his pal make sure these allegations turn into substantial news that can be reported by Retraction Watch. Soon after the unchecked allegations emanating from any source (literally any) land on Oransky’s desk, they get funneled by Clare Francis in the most brazen threatening terms imaginable to journals, institutions and individuals, that get harassed and coerced into taking immediate action. According to the journal editors, over 90% of the allegations by Clare Francis are simply gibberish. Once some scathing reaction, for example a journal retraction, is elicited by Clare Francis and gets out in the open, Retraction Watch immediately reports it, broadcasting the scathing news in the harshest terms possible. Retraction Watch can do this extremely swiftly, usually the very same day the reaction becomes public, obviously because Clare Francis is the secret arm of Retraction Watch: they generate the same news they broadcast. Immediately after Retraction Watch publishes their piece, Fernando Pessoa comments profusely on it adding other instances of perceived misconduct allegedly committed by the person under attack. Obviously, Fernando Pessoa can also act so swiftly and thoroughly on each case simply because it is also part of Retraction Watch. To summarize, first the secret arm Clare Francis elicits reactions by journals, institutions and individuals that are brazenly approached with misconduct accusations, then Retraction Watch openly scorns and humiliates the accused person in the harshest terms possible, and finally Fernando Pessoa adds as much salt to the injury as possible. That is how the coward defamation scheme works, as anyone with a moderate ability to think can figure out by reading Retraction Watch.

Let us now focus on Retraction Watch chasing and pillorying of Carlo Croce and on its inspirational enabling role in the NYT investigation. One of the most striking details of the NYT article is its identification by Glanz and Armendariz of Clare Francis, the secret arm of Retraction Watch, as the agent who brashly brought up thirty or more misconduct allegations against Carlo Croce to the attention of OSU authorities. It should be noted that Croce had been profusely attacked and defamed by Retraction Watch prior to the appearance of the NYT article, on May 5, 2014, on April 6, 2015, on October 10, 2016 and, especially, on January 24, 2017, when Fernando Pessoa, the second arm of Retraction Watch, added 15 (fifteen) scathing comments against Carlo Croce on the very same day! In this way, all of Clare Francis accusations presented to OSU were fully covered also by Retraction Watch. On March 8, 2017, within a few hours after the NYT article came out, Retraction Watch published its own fiercely scathing article against Carlo Croce, covering the NYT defamation in gory detail and even amplifying the damage, and this time Fernando Pessoa added 13 (thirteen) comments describing more instances of misconduct allegedly committed by Carlo Croce. On March 15, another article damaging Carlo Croce came out at Retraction Watch, but the apotheosis came on March 30, 2017, a day after the AACR prize to Carlo Croce was announced. Oransky and his pal were truly incensed. On March 30, 2017 in an article entitled “Cancer org bestows award on scientist under investigation“, Retraction Watch expressed its outrage that Carlo Croce, a person seriously suspected of misconduct, would be given a prize by a “Cancer org” (Retraction Watch was referring to the American Association of Cancer Research). Fernando Pessoa swiftly added three scathing comments that day. Retraction Watch kept of defaming Croce on April 3, 2017 (Fernando Pessoa added 9 nasty comments this time), June 9, August 29, and September 8, 2017, with Fernando Pessoa adding scathing comments each time.

Carlo Croce sued the NYT for defamation. He should not spare Retraction Watch, the instigator and enabler of the NYT article. Oransky and his pal Marcus should be served in court for the great disservice they are doing to science and to the people whose lives are saved every day thanks to Croce’s discoveries.

Advertisements
Standard
Anonymous Commenter, Clare Francis, Defamation lawsuit, First Amendment, Joshua Cherry, Joshua L. Cherry, Joshua L. Cherry NIH, Nature, NCBI, NIH, Post publication peer review, Post Publication Peer Review Scam, PubPeer, Reputation Damage, Research Integrity, Scientific corruption

The Travesty of Post Publication Peer Review

 It is well known that Chinese people have a practical and pragmatic bent. I recall having asked a successful professor what it would take to publish in Nature. He replied:

“You need to do very good work, make a lot of friends in your field and, above all, make sure to befriend the editors. To secure publications in good journals it is always best to start a courtship with the editors, find out what gets them excited. This approach often bears fruit.”

The whole publishing game seemed quite cynical to me at the time. Eventually, that conversation lead me to quit science altogether.

An untold truth in science is that success rests primarily on who you know, rather than on the merits of your work. Not surprisingly, the mechanism to protect the integrity of research reporting, the peer review (PR) system, has turned into a true scam, corrupt to the marrow. The anonymity of the PR process, implemented originally to guarantee freedom of opinion, in practice has become a vehicle for reviewers to promote their self-serving agenda, encouraging ax-grinding by the author’s competitors and complacency by the author’s friends. Editors contribute substantively to the scam by cherry-picking reviewers for the authors they like and rejecting papers without even sending them out for review (often to reduce their workload) whenever the author is not perceived as influential enough to bring them some benefit by treating him well.

If PR is a scam, post-publication peer review (PPPR) is a travesty to a grotesque degree. Here we don’t even know if the reviewers are the actual peers of scientists or simply angry frustrated people trying to bring down the authors. Our own polls conducted on 11 scientific publishers reveal that over 90% of anonymous PPPR is not pursued by the journals after it is found to be frivolous.  At least in PR, the journal editors are entrusted by the scientific establishment with picking reviewers who are supposed to be the author’s peers. But with PPPR, anything goes, as people with no verifiable credentials are allowed to hide in their anonymity to take comfortable shots at whoever they pick as their target.  At Science Transparency we have identified one such sniper: Joshua L. Cherry, the NIH/NCBI contractor still on the loose.

PPPR has thus turned into a farce where anyone gets to say anything, no matter how crass his views are. The channel for these people is the internet, the vast repository where angry people get to pour their vitriol and get the feeling that they are being heard. This matter is admirably described in an article entitled “Why Is Everyone on the Internet So Angry?” that seeks to identify the psychological root of the problem.

Of course, the root of the PPPR phenomenon and the anger it promotes can be found in the internet. “These days, online comments have become extraordinarily aggressive without resolving anything,” said Art Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.  Yet, the possibility of an anonymous attack offers a vehicle of self-realization for the frustrated scientist, and the internet enables this possibility and enables the person to be heard, finally! This emboldens him and fuels his anger.

Standard
First Amendment, Post Publication Peer Review Scam, PubPeer, Retraction Watch, Scientific corruption

First Amendment Abuse and the Post Publication Peer Review Scam

On Tuesday October 4 at 10AM, a Michigan Court in Detroit conducted a hearing on case 326691 “Fazlul Sarkar vs John Doe”. As you may recall from our coverage at Science Transparency, Pr…

Source: First Amendment Abuse: Time to Sue Post Publication Reviewers for False Accusations

Standard
Adam Marcus, Anonymous Commenter, Character Assassination, Civil Death, Clare Francis, Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, Fake Peer Review, Fazlul Sarkar, First Amendment to US Constitution, Ivan Oransky, Michigan Court of Appeals, Post publication peer review, PubPeer, PubPeer lawsuit, Reporting Retractions, Reporting Science Retractions, Reputation Damage, Research Integrity, Research misconduct, Retraction Watch, Retractions, Science Transparency, Scientific Misconduct, Wayne State University

First Amendment Abuse: Time to Sue Post Publication Reviewers for False Accusations

On Tuesday October 4 at 10AM, a Michigan Court in Detroit conducted a hearing on case 326691 “Fazlul Sarkar vs John Doe”. As you may recall from our coverage at Science Transparency, Prof. Sarkar is a scientist anonymously accused of misconduct through a blog named PubPeer. Whether his data is valid or invalid is something we are not in a position to evaluate or debate. The focus here is the modus operandi of his accusers. The accusations had adverse consequences for his career and so Dr. Sarkar sued PubPeer in Court. The Court requested that the identity of only one of the anonymous accusers be revealed. This has not yet happened. All we know is that the accuser or accusers whose identity is sought by the Court hid under the pseudonym Clare Francis to launch the attacks on Fazlul Sarkar in what constitutes a flagrant abuse of First Amendment rights. The lawyers for the defendants argued that the Constitutional rights bestowed by the First Amendment guarantee the impunity of their clients. That is wrong, very wrong. And whose peers are PubPeers anyway?

To discuss the venal Clare Francis, we need to briefly focus on the blog Retraction Watch (the two are intimately related). This blog is run by two journalists, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. Odd as it sounds, these non-scientists and the anonymous contributors to the blog claim they seek “to increase the transparency of the retraction process in science” (sic), which is an oxymoron. Initially, the founders of Retraction Watch worried they would not get enough stories to cover. So, right around the time the blog came into existence in August 2010, anonymous whistleblowers, including Clare Francis, also surfaced and relentlessly accused scientists of misconduct, allegedly in connivance with Retraction Watch.  The blog harassed, scorned and pilloried anyone immediately after the anonymous whistleblowers managed to elicit some reaction from the journals, be it an expression of concern or a retraction. Obviously, Clare Francis or the cowards that hid in anonymity immediately informed Retraction Watch (or… yes, you are right). The attack then escalated as other journals were contacted once the accusers gained their short-lived credibility with the help of Retraction Watch, and their attacks then spiraled into full defamation cycles.

This seemed like quite an effective strategy to boost the blog, particularly since Clare Francis and other nobodies have been aggressively accusing scientists of fraud and plagiarism. If the anonymous accusers were successful in eliciting damning reactions from the journal editors, Retraction Watch would get a juicy story and a chance to pillory the incriminated scientists. On the other hand, if the cowards were not successful or the accusation proved to be false, there would be no consequence for them or for Retraction Watch since the journals typically do not inform the public or institutions that they have received a false accusation.

The ungainly posts at Retraction Watch elicited by Clare Francis actions contributed to build up a poisonous atmosphere best reflected in Ivan Oransky’s retort to a Nature editorial on retractions. Nature’s cautious reflections contrast starkly with Oransky’s views on the need for immediate condemnation illustrated by the following passage:

“We would argue that journals like Nature actually have a tremendous amount of power. If Nature thinks that they “have neither the authority nor the means to police authors or their institutions,” the editors should sit down with Anesthesia & Analgesia editor in chief Steven Shafer, who gathered a consortium of journal editors that held institutions’ feet to the fire and led to retractions in the Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii cases. One can only imagine how quickly a dean would return a call from Nature.”

After this rant, Oransky charged again:

“And why not issue an expression of concern about papers during those years while it’s being investigated? How does Nature justify, for example, leaving the dance symmetry paper in the literature for for five years after authors requested a retraction? Unless, of course, you’re worried about losing those citations, the first two years of which will count toward your impact factor.”

Motivated by recent reports on harassment to scientists and by these troubling views, Science Transparency decided to investigate the matter further. We sought to find out what proportion of accusations by Clare Francis or the cowards operating anonymously allegedly on behalf of the Clare Francis/ Retraction Watch machine had any merit to the point that they would eventually result in retraction. Although editors had not been diligent in collecting statistics, they all pointed to a figure slightly lower than 10%.

In regards to those enduring false accusations of misconduct by Retraction Watch, Paul S. Thaler, one of the most successful lawyer in the field, had this to say:

The first thing to remember is that the federal regulations, as well as the internal policies of most institutions, protect the confidentiality of respondents in research misconduct matters.  Thus, as a matter of federal law, institutions are prohibited from disclosing the identity of an accused scientist, except on a “need to know” basis, for example, to a member of the investigation committee, unless and until a finding of research misconduct is made.  These proceedings are not public as court is in criminal and civil disputes.  It is more comparable to proceedings against other professionals, such as lawyers, who are governed by their licensing organization.  Privacy in these matters is critically important as there is no public need to, or right to know, about professionals simply accused of wrongdoing.  What the public has a right to know about is a professional who has been found responsible for wrongdoing.  At that point, the public is alerted.  But because a professional’s reputation is so important to his or her career, the specter of an accusation can permanently stain that reputation and frequently the accusation is not well founded.  So the confidentiality of the process allows a full examination before the public is made aware.  We certainly do want to know about those scientists who have actually done something wrong that impacts science, but we do not, and should not, be concerned with those who are good scientists but caught up in a sometimes very political, internal dispute.

These remarks by attorney Paul S. Thaler are very much in line with the law (42 C.F.R. § 93.108(b) (2005)), as noted by Nicholas Roumel, the lawyer of plaintiff Dr. Sarkar:

“Because the consequences of a research misconduct proceeding can be dire, the [federal] regulations impose conditions of strict confidentiality on allegations of research misconduct. As section 93.108 of the regulations states: “Disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants in research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law.” 42 C.F.R. § 93.108(a) (2005). Disclosure of records or other evidence from which research subjects might be identified is also limited to “those who have a need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.” 42 C.F.R. § 93.108(b) (2005).” [Mauvais-Jarvis v. Wong, 2013 IL App (1st) 120070 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2013)]

It is our expectation that the scientists that have been wrongly accused of wrongdoing and pilloried by Retraction Watch, or by the cowards hiding behind pseudonyms, will now sue those responsible in Court. The writer of this piece may be contacted (weishilaurameng@gmail.com) to help coordinate some of the effort.

Standard
Marcia McNutt, Post publication peer review, PubPeer, Retraction Watch, Science Magazine, Social Media

RE: “Due Process in the Twitter Age” by Science Editor Marcia McNutt

Marcia McNutt is the Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, a well-known venue to communicate research results, and of other Science journals. She has recently contributed an editorial entitled “Due Process in the Twitter Age” where she tells us readers that the process of post publication revision has now changed because of the prominent role played by social media. Apparently, the anxiety created by social media, where anyone can hide and fire misconduct allegations or spill their anger at the world, fuels quick post-publication revision, putting pressure on journal editors. In other words, according to McNutt, social media influence the post publication fate of research articles because of the anxiety they generate in the scientific audience. Can you imagine a working scientist whose time is so precious reading blogs to judge or evaluate published research? It is hard to imagine that someone in McNutt’s position would say something so egregiously stupid but that’s pretty much what she wrote, I’m afraid.

The absurdity reached a climax when she identified social media outlets that in her opinion cause anxiety in the scientific establishment. She mentioned Retraction Watch, a blog created by two journalists, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, where literally anyone comments anything, and its sister blog PubPeer, a sort of reading club contributed anonymously, where there is no way to tell whether the contributors are anybody’s peers or simply coopt the site to attack people. This leaves us wondering why Retraction Watch founder Ivan Oransky has been named Science’s Garbage Man (Muellsammler der Wissenschaft).

Clearly journals have only themselves to blame for the sorry state of post publication revision. As McNutt’s editorial piece makes it abundantly clear, ineptitude is the sole culprit of the current crisis. When a player in science policy says what McNutt has said, it leaves us wondering about the fate of research. Hopefully such nonsense will not prevail, otherwise research is doomed as we know it.

Perhaps the following quote by a lucid Londoner commenting in the Daily Mail (UK) may help Marcia McNutt put in perspective the scientific impact of social media:

Social Media has turned us all into the baying masses of the medieval witch hunts, with no mediators of our hysterical views, and with the loudest, most ignorant and angry up at the front with their burning tweeting torches.

Standard
Clare Francis, Defamation lawsuit, Expression of concern, Fazlul Sarkar, Peer Review, Post publication peer review, PubPeer, Retraction, Retraction Watch, Scientific journal, Sock puppetry

The demise of peer review in scientific publication

It is widely felt that peer review in scientific publishing is failing and it seems journal editors and academic authorities have only themselves to blame. Nature started a debate on the subject but it is felt that the point was not made somehow. Every time a journal publishes an alert note or an expression of concern, or a retraction, in case of invalid data, the journal damages its own reputation by showing that its own peer review system has failed. The journal is exposing its inability to find competent reviewers that should have spotted the problems in the first place. Worse, in their confusion, some journal editors have even fallen prey to post-publication peer review, a rogue tank for indiscriminate assault run by the unqualified blogs PubPeer and Retraction Watch.

PubPeers are in effect nobody’s peers! (see our comment in Science Magazine) Their scientific credentials have not been screened, their competence has not been checked and, not surprisingly, the majority of the PubPeer accusations (over 85% by our own estimation) proved to be either false or frivolous, with vagaries like “these statistics look weird”, “these gel bands look similar”, and the like. On the other hand, most Retraction Watchers resort to sock puppetry (Clare Francis, etc.)  to launch their attacks so, it is hard to tell how many personal attacks are actually taken seriously. Like its sister blog Retraction Watch, which feeds on PubPeer, these indiscriminate sites serve as vehicles for anyone to say whatever they like and harass individuals, journals and institutions. Shrouded in anonymity, these angry people comfortably take shots at working scientists, with their attacks frequently driven by jealousy or envy.

But we are not being completely fair here. There are instances when honest contributors to PubPeer or Retraction Watch/Clare Francis have done a good job at helping journals spot fraudulent work. Unfortunately, the blogs are ill conceived and so they become flooded with nonsense or, worse, become subservient to hatred-driven attacks. That may be why Retraction Watch founder Ivan Oransky has been named Science’s Garbage Man by the Swiss Radio and Television (Muellsammler der Wissenschaft).

The sad thing is that there are journal editors (and even academic administrators) stupid enough to take these blogs seriously. The defamation lawsuit by Wayne State University Professor Fazlul Sarkar already covered by Science Transparency may mark a turning point (don’t count on it yet), inspiring editors and university authorities to finally follow science’s centuries-old way of dealing with challenges to published work. Pasted below is the protocol to deal with challenges to scientific reports that has been in place for centuries, basically since the Acta Eruditorum and Philosophical Transactions came into existence in the 17th century:

In the interest of fair play, when an honest person wishes to challenge a published scientific result, the person sends his/her findings to the same journal where the work was published and the challenge is subject to peer review subject to the same standards that applied to the peer review of the original work. This process is kept confidential and if and only if the challenge itself passes peer review, then the journal offers the authors under scrutiny the chance to respond. At this point, the journal goes public and publishes back-to-back the challenge and the response by the authors and takes appropriate action, which may be stern in case of invalid data (presumably a retraction notice).

Standard
Artificial windpipes, Bengt Gerdin, Clare Francis, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Due process, Fake Peer Review, First Amendment to US Constitution, Ivan Oransky, Karolinska Institut, Misconduct, Nature, Paolo Macchiarini, Post publication peer review, PubPeer, Retraction Watch, Science Journal, Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Research, Transplant surgery

Science properly correcting itself: The handling of alleged misconduct in claims by Paolo Macchiarini

According to a recent investigation, surgeon Paolo Macchiarini from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm has allegedly committed scientific misconduct in his reporting of results from patient transplants of synthetic tracheas seeded with stem cells. The misconduct investigation 39-page report drafted by Bengt Gerdin, a professor at Uppsala University, reveals that in six published papers, author Paolo Macchiarini had deliberately and knowingly misrepresented or falsified medical data from recipients of the artificial tracheas. The papers allegedly boosted the results of the transplant operations making them appear far more more successful than they really were. The investigation also found that two of the papers described procedures that did not get ethical approval (Lancet 378, 1997–2004 (2011) and Biomaterials 34, 4057–4067; 2013), and that a seventh paper by Macchiarini (Nature Commun. 5, 3562; 2014) also contained fraudulent results.

The investigation launched by the Karolinska Institute began after four physicians at the institution, who were involved in the care of  Macchiarini’s transplant patients, filed formal complaints. The physicians identified themselves as Karl-Henrik Grinnemo, Matthias Corbascio, Thomas Fux and Oscar Simonson and provided medical records that are at odds with the results published by Macchiarini.

Irrespective of the validity of the misconduct findings by Bengt Gerdin, there seems to be at least one fundamental difference between this investigation and the ones prompted by the intrigues and attacks launched by PubPeer-Retraction Watch-Clare Francis contributors. In the Macchiarini case the accusers revealed their identities and proved that they were peers of the person they were accusing. In other words, they behaved as honest people would do and followed the standard course of action that science has developed to handle allegations of scientific misconduct. In addition, the procedure followed by the Karolinska Institute is the one that science has always accepted and has been in place for centuries, since the inception of scientific reporting.

By contrast, the feeders of the PubPeer-Retraction Watch-Clare Francis ring live in a world where you just sit on the outside of science and, while hiding in anonymity, take shots at those doing the actual work. Who the heck are these people at Retraction Watch and PubPeer anyway? Whose peers are they? These abominable practices must come to an end, but that will only happen when people realize that there is a fundamental difference between the way the Swedish Karolinska Institut reacted upon the allegations of four Macchiarini peers and the way amateurish editors handle the accusations by Clare Francis.

Standard