Prof. Dra. Bibiana Fabre
@brfabre.bsky.social
Profesora Asociada. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica. Universidad de Buenos Aires
@ianwalker.bsky.social You blocked me, which proves I was right. Your attitude is cowardly. If you have a problem with my background, go see a psychiatrist. Oh, right, you're a psychologist. I'll try!
September 12, 2025 at 2:05 PM
@ianwalker.bsky.social You blocked me, which proves I was right. Your attitude is cowardly. If you have a problem with my background, go see a psychiatrist. Oh, right, you're a psychologist. I'll try!
After they themselves approved the publication, the editorial process is VERY POOR! THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS ARE DEFICIENT! They harm you with a retraction because of their deficient editorial process! A lack of editorial awareness.
September 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM
After they themselves approved the publication, the editorial process is VERY POOR! THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS ARE DEFICIENT! They harm you with a retraction because of their deficient editorial process! A lack of editorial awareness.
@natureportfolio.nature.com Scientific Reports is a bad journal. Be careful with this journal. They review your work, make observations, correct you, and then, after the review process, which is supposed to be supervised by the editor, months later they retract your article without solid scientific
September 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM
@natureportfolio.nature.com Scientific Reports is a bad journal. Be careful with this journal. They review your work, make observations, correct you, and then, after the review process, which is supposed to be supervised by the editor, months later they retract your article without solid scientific
Terrible journal. Inefficient and ignorant editorial team. I don't recommend submitting to this journal. They're also discriminatory. @SciReports @natureportfolio.nature.com
August 8, 2025 at 7:17 PM
Terrible journal. Inefficient and ignorant editorial team. I don't recommend submitting to this journal. They're also discriminatory. @SciReports @natureportfolio.nature.com
@SciReports doesn't meet ethical publishing standards. They made us pay $600 for the copyright of the Malasch scale and then retracted our article. Someone in that publishing group is making a profit. @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 21, 2025 at 3:20 AM
@SciReports doesn't meet ethical publishing standards. They made us pay $600 for the copyright of the Malasch scale and then retracted our article. Someone in that publishing group is making a profit. @natureportfolio.nature.com
Or are there people who, from their positions at the editorial offices of these journals, use this to make their own profits? @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 10:29 PM
Or are there people who, from their positions at the editorial offices of these journals, use this to make their own profits? @natureportfolio.nature.com
What do you think of Scientific Reports, which made us pay $600 for the rights to use the Malasch scale and then retracted our work? Do you think this is ethical: demanding a copyright fee and then retracting the article? Are there economic interests in the research? @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 10:29 PM
What do you think of Scientific Reports, which made us pay $600 for the rights to use the Malasch scale and then retracted our work? Do you think this is ethical: demanding a copyright fee and then retracting the article? Are there economic interests in the research? @natureportfolio.nature.com
In a mediation model, you assess whether the mediating variable mediates the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 6:44 PM
In a mediation model, you assess whether the mediating variable mediates the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. @natureportfolio.nature.com
Mediation: This is a causal chain where one variable (the mediating variable) explains the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Mediation: This is a causal chain where one variable (the mediating variable) explains the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. @natureportfolio.nature.com
Itallows you to model and predict the value of the outcome variable based on the predictor variables.In the context of mediation regression is used to test whether the mediating variable explains the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Itallows you to model and predict the value of the outcome variable based on the predictor variables.In the context of mediation regression is used to test whether the mediating variable explains the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable @natureportfolio.nature.com
Regression: Examines the relationship between one or more predictor variables (independent variables) and an outcome variable (dependent variable). @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 6:40 PM
Regression: Examines the relationship between one or more predictor variables (independent variables) and an outcome variable (dependent variable). @natureportfolio.nature.com
Correlation: It does not imply a causal relationship, only an association. It can be used to identify whether two variables are related, but not to predict one variable from the other. @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 6:39 PM
Correlation: It does not imply a causal relationship, only an association. It can be used to identify whether two variables are related, but not to predict one variable from the other. @natureportfolio.nature.com
Correlation:
Describes the relationship between two variables, indicating whether they are positively or negatively related, and the strength of that relationship. @natureportfolio.nature.com
Describes the relationship between two variables, indicating whether they are positively or negatively related, and the strength of that relationship. @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Correlation:
Describes the relationship between two variables, indicating whether they are positively or negatively related, and the strength of that relationship. @natureportfolio.nature.com
Describes the relationship between two variables, indicating whether they are positively or negatively related, and the strength of that relationship. @natureportfolio.nature.com
Do not publish in Scientific Reports. They do not know how to differentiate between an association analysis and a mediation analysis. This is very bad journal @natureportfolio.nature.com
May 20, 2025 at 11:53 AM
Do not publish in Scientific Reports. They do not know how to differentiate between an association analysis and a mediation analysis. This is very bad journal @natureportfolio.nature.com
@springernature.com @natureportfolio.nature.com
The worst thing about @SciReports is that editors confuse correlation analysis with ordinary least squares regression. Scientifically, it's horrible! Disastrous for science. Perhaps working at a fashion magazine would do less harm.
The worst thing about @SciReports is that editors confuse correlation analysis with ordinary least squares regression. Scientifically, it's horrible! Disastrous for science. Perhaps working at a fashion magazine would do less harm.
May 6, 2025 at 8:13 PM
@springernature.com @natureportfolio.nature.com
The worst thing about @SciReports is that editors confuse correlation analysis with ordinary least squares regression. Scientifically, it's horrible! Disastrous for science. Perhaps working at a fashion magazine would do less harm.
The worst thing about @SciReports is that editors confuse correlation analysis with ordinary least squares regression. Scientifically, it's horrible! Disastrous for science. Perhaps working at a fashion magazine would do less harm.
@springernature.com @SciReports The editorial process of this journal lacks professionalism and is quite dubious, I do not recommend publishing in this journal, which also has discriminatory overtones. They have retracted our article without any serious scientific basis.
May 6, 2025 at 5:52 PM
@springernature.com @SciReports The editorial process of this journal lacks professionalism and is quite dubious, I do not recommend publishing in this journal, which also has discriminatory overtones. They have retracted our article without any serious scientific basis.
@natureportfolio.nature.com @SciReports The editorial process of this journal lacks professionalism and is quite dubious, I do not recommend publishing in this journal, which also has discriminatory overtones. They have retracted our article without any serious scientific basis
May 6, 2025 at 5:36 PM
@natureportfolio.nature.com @SciReports The editorial process of this journal lacks professionalism and is quite dubious, I do not recommend publishing in this journal, which also has discriminatory overtones. They have retracted our article without any serious scientific basis
Scientific Reports @natureportfolio.nature.com @nature.com decided from nternal deliberations, without providing us access to the detailed evaluations or clear, literature-based scientific justifications that supposedly guided your experts. In short, we received no constructive feedback
April 2, 2025 at 12:26 PM
Scientific Reports @natureportfolio.nature.com @nature.com decided from nternal deliberations, without providing us access to the detailed evaluations or clear, literature-based scientific justifications that supposedly guided your experts. In short, we received no constructive feedback
That is to say, the review process for Scientific reports @natureportfolio.nature.com @nature.com is based on what the current Twitter users say, for example @ianwalker, this is a danger to the scientific community!
April 2, 2025 at 12:11 PM
That is to say, the review process for Scientific reports @natureportfolio.nature.com @nature.com is based on what the current Twitter users say, for example @ianwalker, this is a danger to the scientific community!
The Scientific Reports @nature.com review process is deficient. This is a disreputable journal that fails to present scientific arguments when reviewing an article. I do not recommend publishing in this journal.
April 2, 2025 at 12:10 PM
The Scientific Reports @nature.com review process is deficient. This is a disreputable journal that fails to present scientific arguments when reviewing an article. I do not recommend publishing in this journal.
That is to say, the review process for Scientific reports @natureportfolio.nature.com is based on what the current Twitter users say, for example @ianwalker, this is a danger to the scientific community!
April 2, 2025 at 12:09 PM
That is to say, the review process for Scientific reports @natureportfolio.nature.com is based on what the current Twitter users say, for example @ianwalker, this is a danger to the scientific community!
@natureportfolio.nature.com and @ianwalker will have some kind of problems with the Argentine researchers. And I say this because in Bluesky, Professor Walker stated that he doubted that we knew how to calculate the regression index B.
April 2, 2025 at 12:09 PM
@natureportfolio.nature.com and @ianwalker will have some kind of problems with the Argentine researchers. And I say this because in Bluesky, Professor Walker stated that he doubted that we knew how to calculate the regression index B.
@natureportfolio.nature.com Follow Professor Ian Walker on Twitter, who blocked me. Why did Professor Ian Walker block me? He and @natureportfolio.nature.com are related.
April 2, 2025 at 12:07 PM
@natureportfolio.nature.com Follow Professor Ian Walker on Twitter, who blocked me. Why did Professor Ian Walker block me? He and @natureportfolio.nature.com are related.
Retraction form grounds
March 31, 2025 at 8:07 PM
Retraction form grounds
I find it extremely serious that Scientific Reports uses a Twitter account on this network to question the results of a scientific study. Tomorrow, I could post that dogs fly, and Scientific Reports would tag this? @natureportfolio.nature.com
March 31, 2025 at 11:49 AM
I find it extremely serious that Scientific Reports uses a Twitter account on this network to question the results of a scientific study. Tomorrow, I could post that dogs fly, and Scientific Reports would tag this? @natureportfolio.nature.com