Cheshire
@thatsregrettab1.bsky.social
@Thatsregrettab1 on Twitter
👉 Not a scientist, just a nuisance 👈
Named: ‘Perpetrator 1’ by @sciguardians.bsky.social
CheshireGrins@protonmail.com
Kevin Patrick IRL
👉 Not a scientist, just a nuisance 👈
Named: ‘Perpetrator 1’ by @sciguardians.bsky.social
CheshireGrins@protonmail.com
Kevin Patrick IRL
Are we now in a post-ethics era?
November 14, 2025 at 12:16 AM
Are we now in a post-ethics era?
What they give us
November 13, 2025 at 3:47 AM
What they give us
November 11, 2025 at 3:51 PM
Flagged on PubPeer a couple of days ago, but no word from the authors so far. Whether I'm right or wrong, hopefully I won't get sued.
retractionwatch.com/2024/08/06/p...
retractionwatch.com/2024/08/06/p...
PNAS corrects article by Kavli prize winner who threatened to sue critic
Chad Mirkin Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has corrected an article by a prize-winning chemist following a report by Retraction Watch his threat to sue a fellow scientist who had s…
retractionwatch.com
November 11, 2025 at 3:51 PM
Flagged on PubPeer a couple of days ago, but no word from the authors so far. Whether I'm right or wrong, hopefully I won't get sued.
retractionwatch.com/2024/08/06/p...
retractionwatch.com/2024/08/06/p...
The paper by Chad Mirkin and others at Northwestern reported results that achieved a tumor growth inhibition (TGI) of 97.5% and "59-fold better antitumor efficacy than 5-Fu" in the mouse model. I think 59-fold should perhaps be 5.9-fold.
November 11, 2025 at 3:51 PM
The paper by Chad Mirkin and others at Northwestern reported results that achieved a tumor growth inhibition (TGI) of 97.5% and "59-fold better antitumor efficacy than 5-Fu" in the mouse model. I think 59-fold should perhaps be 5.9-fold.
Agreed.
The publishers have no shame. They get paid, then sometimes later they may have to craft a correction or retraction… to little fanfare or notice.
Why would they do anything differently?
Any solution must come from a different party.
The publishers have no shame. They get paid, then sometimes later they may have to craft a correction or retraction… to little fanfare or notice.
Why would they do anything differently?
Any solution must come from a different party.
November 11, 2025 at 6:58 AM
Agreed.
The publishers have no shame. They get paid, then sometimes later they may have to craft a correction or retraction… to little fanfare or notice.
Why would they do anything differently?
Any solution must come from a different party.
The publishers have no shame. They get paid, then sometimes later they may have to craft a correction or retraction… to little fanfare or notice.
Why would they do anything differently?
Any solution must come from a different party.
I figured that that was what happened and why I responded (mostly) politely 😇. No worries.
November 11, 2025 at 4:41 AM
I figured that that was what happened and why I responded (mostly) politely 😇. No worries.
Not that I see.
I wondered whether Sholto emailed Markus or Patrick so that they saw this spectacular example of how well their software works (or to Sholto's point, how badly Scientific Reports in-house team and tools perform).
I wondered whether Sholto emailed Markus or Patrick so that they saw this spectacular example of how well their software works (or to Sholto's point, how badly Scientific Reports in-house team and tools perform).
November 11, 2025 at 4:30 AM
Not that I see.
I wondered whether Sholto emailed Markus or Patrick so that they saw this spectacular example of how well their software works (or to Sholto's point, how badly Scientific Reports in-house team and tools perform).
I wondered whether Sholto emailed Markus or Patrick so that they saw this spectacular example of how well their software works (or to Sholto's point, how badly Scientific Reports in-house team and tools perform).
Did you send this to the ImageTwin guys?
November 11, 2025 at 4:05 AM
Did you send this to the ImageTwin guys?
Holy sh*t.
I think this could be the worst I‘ve ever seen.
I think this could be the worst I‘ve ever seen.
November 11, 2025 at 4:05 AM
Holy sh*t.
I think this could be the worst I‘ve ever seen.
I think this could be the worst I‘ve ever seen.
November 8, 2025 at 3:59 AM
