Overly.Honest.Editor

Fine, all of you win. I hope this makes you feel good.

I think we settled on the fact that you completely devalue my concerns over personal safety, just to perform some petty fact checking that would show exactly nothing because nobody says in the paper 1/

Are you objecting to the defamatory part or the due diligence part? Because for the first one you literally need to look at (checks other notes) almost every paper that suggests half of the literature is fraud. 1/

Waiting for Finland to blink #ScientificPublishing

Did I read that right: for £21k a year you can help U Essex figure out how 21st century legal genocide could look like? *blinks*

Statisticians beware #StatsSky

Found myself on the Solitude Island:

Omg, drafts are here. Now also let me share images via DMs and I'm set.

Incentives are skewed in research.

There, I fixed it for you @elife.bsky.social #ScientificPublishing

I saw this post yesterday and read it as: "vaccination increases extraversion".

I do need a vacation. I also have no conflicts to declare.

This headline number has generated a lot of attention, but does not account for the classifier's accuracy. @jamiecummins.bsky.social and I wrote a short commentary showing that, assuming a paper mill base rate of 10%, 30% of the flagged papers are false positives. At a base rate of 5%, 50% are FPs.

Screen shot of a youtube video titled "AI.FILL Function Explained: 10X Productivity in Excel with AI" with the caption "Let ChatGPT fill your missing data"

Don't you f**king dare.

As a workplace safety researcher I'm intrigued by this framing. Initial thought:

Safe workplaces require institutional change. Workers don't make the workplace safe, employers do.

Researchers can't fix this themselves. We need journals and the academic industry to change practices and incentives.

Which I think is where the metaphor of unsafe workplace falls apart (or at least wobbles a little). No one is incentivised to produce or provide faulty lab equipment. If you cut corners, you just die as a company. But researchers are incentivised to misbehave...

As someone who spends 120% of their time correcting the literature I can only say then no, I don't want to have keep doing this and yes, I am adequately motivated. But the issue, which I keep banging on about, is that problems do not start with the journals. It's only where they manifest themselves.

Academic publishers defeat lawsuit over ‘peer review’ pay, other restrictions A group of major academic publishers convinced a judge in New York to dismiss a lawsuit accusing them of thwarting competition by barring scholars from submitting papers to multiple journals simultane...

This is going to be bitter sweet but before you start dunking on publishers again let me just say that by fighting the 'no submission to multiple journals' principle, this lawsuit was doing one of the biggest disfavours to #ResearchIntegrity efforts in a long time

www.reuters.com/legal/govern...

Wiley: "We’re supporting responsible research assessment practices" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1520...

Also Wiley: "Prove that your article is a good fit for this journal 😉😉😉😉😉 by citing at least two of our articles in your manuscript before we will even consider reviewing it" 🤡

Context:

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

But also a reminder that you need to plan your own notes and data archiving and backups regardless of whether you use LLM tools or not. If you think paper-hungry pet will save you from a retraction, think again #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing

Tbf I'd like to see regulation of academia first, because that's where sh*t actually goes down. Publishing is only where it surfaces.

Honestly, I was hoping for more meme/gif replies, so thanks for delivering! Will make you a co-author later.

Front of a East London building with a sign reading "Papermill Wharf" above the entrance.

Omg, guys, I found the headquarters 🤔 #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing What should we do next?

Context:

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

But also a reminder that you need to plan your own notes and data archiving and backups regardless of whether you use LLM tools or not. If you think paper-hungry pet will save you from a retraction, think again #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing

AI agent deleted all my files will become the new dog ate my homework.

Donald?

Front of a East London building with a sign reading "Papermill Wharf" above the entrance.

Omg, guys, I found the headquarters 🤔 #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing What should we do next?

But good to know that some things in life do stay constant.

Reminds me of this. We need to bring #ShareYourRejections to BSky

Dr Kareem Carr man: i wish to publish @kareem_carr Jan 21 reviewer 2: your paper is no good man: i'll do anything to improve reviewer 2: it's simple. you must read the work of the great scientist Pagliarini man: *bursts into tears* but i am Pagliarini Andre Pagliarini @apagliar Jan 21 a first: in rejecting an article I submitted to a journal, reviewer 2 noted I failed to engage the work of one Andre Pagliarini Jan 21, 2026 • 3:47 PM UTC

I just thought everyone should see this

195: Living meta-analysis everythinghertz.com/195

We discuss how living meta‑analyses can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea and what researchers *really* mean when they call a study "recent".

Just wanted to highlight that at least with endocrine data you won't need to wait long to see impact of synthetic participants in the most recent research...