DayoMaor
@DayoMaor
Followers
265
Following
40
Media
148
Statuses
354
I search it and post on Pubpeer.
Somewhere
Joined July 2021
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
Liam Payne
• 2235486 Tweets
ブロック
• 428641 Tweets
LINGORM PANTENE VOGUE TRIP
• 285806 Tweets
Twitterくん
• 275704 Tweets
西田さん
• 262756 Tweets
西田敏行さん
• 241685 Tweets
俳優さん
• 174516 Tweets
生成AI
• 140509 Tweets
Bluesky
• 117652 Tweets
ツイッター
• 111601 Tweets
AI学習
• 98894 Tweets
ブルスカ
• 97057 Tweets
Grok
• 95944 Tweets
利用規約
• 88875 Tweets
規約変更
• 80762 Tweets
イーロン
• 70176 Tweets
スーパームーン
• 66168 Tweets
イラスト投稿
• 64514 Tweets
ぐりとぐら
• 57562 Tweets
pixiv
• 49691 Tweets
블루스카이
• 38970 Tweets
タイッツー
• 35073 Tweets
#INDvsNZ
• 33811 Tweets
他のSNS
• 28940 Tweets
池中玄太80キロ
• 27740 Tweets
Misskey
• 27381 Tweets
ドクターX
• 22833 Tweets
無断転載
• 17317 Tweets
探偵ナイトスクープ
• 14840 Tweets
相互さん
• 14506 Tweets
絵師さん
• 10238 Tweets
Have you ever wondered how fake data pass reviewing? Here is good example. Frontiers in Chemisty published reviewer names for this piece of copy -paste art. Let's check who was so generous and why. 1/n
6
13
66
Anyone who finds problems in these "XRD" and "Raman" is welcome to post it on PubPeer. Nearly all data in this paper are hand drawn. Journals which publish this "research" need to be shut down. "Environmental research" (2024)
@ElsevierConnect
8
12
44
Authors of this paper replied on pubpeer that comments might affect their mental health. My concern is about mental health of readers and honest researchers who find these "data" published as "Top 100 in Chemistry 2022" by
@SciReports
@MicrobiomDigest
5
4
44
We know that junk journals are created to publish junk science. But these authors exceeded any reasonable limits of "junk" moving into a territory of absurd art. The same type of "Pisa tower" spectra were accepted by all major publishers.
9
4
42
Copy-paste "XRD" are rather common now in research literature. Most journals are not really interested to do anything at all about these issues.
@AmerChemSociety
This paper is on PP since 2022, it is cited 58 times, please retract!
2
8
39
I admire courage and confidence of these authors who continued to publish these insane "spectra" with drunk peaks even after public humiliation back in 2022. This paper is from 2023.
6
5
36
Highlights 2023. If you don't like some peak in XRD pattern, just cut it and replace with whatever. All respected publishers will accept it for publication. This example was copied in 4(!) papers by
@RoySocChem
@ElsevierConnect
@ACSPublications
6
7
35
One of the worst ever "XRD patterns" published by
@SciReports
Dear publishers, how could that figure pass per review? Is that a space shuttle or diffraction peak?
@fxcoudert
@MicrobiomDigest
3
6
29
This "XRD" is a kind of "Black Square" by Kazimir Malevich. It can't be more absurd than that..... Thanks to Hindawi for excitement. 🤣🤣🤣
@wileyinresearch
, do you own this journal now?
4
6
29
The guy who published the same TEM image in 40+ papers (and has 100 papers on PP) and exposed by
@MicrobiomDigest
back in 2020 still has most of these papers not retracted. This one "currently in question" since 2020 by
@SciReports
2
9
28
Welcome to New World of scientific publishing. Authors replaced fake XPS and XRD (but not TEM) figures with new fakes as correction and none of these affected results and conclusions of this paper. The journal simply stated that figures had "errors".
5
4
28
What a story. Retraction, de-retraction and re-retraction of paper. Imagine editors in a boxing match over this paper. Alternative: Editor in Chief was on vacation and come back to find de-retraction made by his assitant.
2
5
23
I regret problems of researchers who don't have access to diffractometers or spectrometers, but it is still not good excuse for making up "data" by adding or removing peaks.
@NottmTrentUni
, do you have diffractometer?
@ElsevierConnect
please retract.
3
3
23
Highlights 2023. Many papers were found in
@SciReports
2% of their "top 100 " appeared to be fraud. It is safe to publish fake figures in this journal. In worst case authors replace fake figure with better prepared fake. As it happened with this paper:
3
5
23
What a day. I never expected much from MDPI but that is really wild.... You can not be serious
@MDPIOpenAccess
@fxcoudert
2
6
21
Not only junk journals. High IF journals also often do nothing even when multiple fake figures are exposed. Here is example of Advanced Materials (IF =25.8) paper commented 2 years ago, cited 203 times and not even corrected:
2
3
21
@WileyGlobal
Welcome. I have many other similar stories to share with you
@WileyGlobal
. Take this one for example. Almost every figure is fake but authors got away with mega - erratum. High IF journal Small.
3
3
19
Reply by main author of this paper: "its good there is no any unusual in this image". 😂🤣😂
2
5
20
Fish eye in XRD pattern published by
@SciReports
It looks like some undesirable peaks were removed from two patterns and space filled by hand drawn lines. The paper is listed as "Top 100 in materials science." Imagine what is in their bottom 100 ....
1
0
19
One of the most insane "XRD" which I ever seen. Nothing was done by
@ELSenviron
@ElsevierConnect
since 2021. The paper is cited 83 times. Who on Earth could actually belive it is XRD? Reviewers+editors + authors of 83 papers did.
2
3
18
This paper is symbol of everything wrong in research publishing. Published twice (one withdrawn), key numbers corrected by 100 milliards (!) (2 figs corrected), finallly 2 fake figures replaced. Nothing of that affected conclusions.
@MicrobiomDigest
2
2
16
Another environmental journal with IF>8 . Authors added new peaks to XRD pattern without bothering to remove overlapping parts. Reviewers passed it for publication. Cited 76 times according to scholar. Only 48$ to read charged by
@ACSPublications
2
2
17
The guy is still employed by the same University and continues to publish 30+ papers per year. Not even grand work by
@MicrobiomDigest
could stop him
0
5
17
Some authors don't like experiments. It is easier to take XRD pattern, to shift peaks horizontally and to add peaks they need. But this piece of art remains on line until the rest of their days. Life is all about choices.
@JPhysChem
please retract.
2
3
16
Two highly cited papers from 2014 with overlap of data. Why to collect more data if all the same patterns can be shifted horizontally and rescaled vertically to represent different materials? One of those ways to make more papers on the way to Prof. jobs
3
2
16
The same last author as in my previous post. Adding one peak to the Raman spectra of MXene produced spectrum of Cu2O doped MXene. It saves a lot of time and resources to add peaks without making experiments. Cited 36 times.
@ElsevierConnect
0
1
15
Let's make it in
@MicrobiomDigest
style. This paper already corrected for fake images also has issues with XRD. Anyone who find problems, welcome to post to pubpeer (not going to do it myself). Level- super easy.
9
1
14
If you think that weird data are published only by authors from little known Universities have a look at this paper in @
@AmerChemSociety
ACS Applied Nano Materials. Prof. Robert Bradley from
@UniofOxford
is one of co-authors.
1
0
15
@SciReports
alerted their readers about this paper on 05 August 2020
Now it is Sept. 2023. How long it takes for your investigations
@Nature
?
@MicrobiomDigest
found TEM image from this paper published 40+ (!) times. XRD and XPS are problematic.
0
3
9
One of reviewers, Behrooz Maleki , has own PubPeer record of 8 papers with exactly the same kind of "data." Example below is from
@RSCAdvances
again, doi: 10.1039/c4ra08536a Disclaimer: none of these findings was done by me.
0
1
15
"Top 100 in Materials Science" paper by
@SciReports
was exposed on PP for very obvious fakes in 3 figures. Someone else reported it to editors. Reply? No problems, authors provided better faked original data which will never be shown to readers.
4
1
14
Some scientists still use diffractometers to record XRD. That is old and outdated method. Power of imagination works better to produce expected results. It also saves money and electricity. This group perfected innovative methods in tens of papers.
0
1
14
Web of Science placed "on hold" several journals including Chemosphere (IF=8.8). I hope they de-list this journal, one of the worst in recent years. Any crap is accepted there and papermill products welcomed.
4
2
14
Some authors believe in miracles. Otherwise, how could they set different peak positions in two copies of the same spectrum? Did they hoped that nobody will ever read their paper?
2
0
13
Highlights 2023. n/100
Everything is falsifiable. Like NMR spectra published in prestigious IF= 8.6 Chemistry of Materials Corersponding author, Hermenegildo Garcia is celebrated with numerous awards.
@ChemMater
do you care?
@MicrobiomDigest
1
3
13
This horror SEM image was already commented back in 2021. I added few more repetitive regions but far from all
@MicrobiomDigest
Prof.Ezzat G. Bakhoum , claims that samples were analyzed in extrenal lab. I guess this "lab" produced a lot more...
6
0
13
"Royal Society of Chemistry has asked the affiliated institution to .. confirm the integrity and reliability of the XRD."
@RoySocChem
?? Expression of concern for paper with the same XRD published 6 times in 4 papers, 10 fake XRD in several panels etc.
1
4
13
@Thatsregrettab1
@FASEBorg
It is surprising how tolerant is modern publishing system to all kinds of lies
1
0
12
I assume one can occasionally make figure using the same spectrum twice by mistake. But why peak positions are different in exactly the same spectra if you assign it to different materials (???). Cited 204 times by now.
@ElsevierConnect
2
2
12
The system which awards for number of publications get what it deserves: large number of publications. Including this one by
@WileyGlobal
Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem
@wileyinresearch
if you have research integrity team, please let them know. Do you have it?
2
1
12
This paper is "editors choice" by
@SciReports
Abnormal noise and shape of major peaks is really, really difficult not to spot in 3 sec.
3
1
12
This paper is cited 250 times. Publishers don't care. Editors don't care. Authors don't care. Readers don't care.
Very strange "Raman spectra" in IF 11.9 Journal of Material Chemistry A by
@RoySocChem
Editors,
@AHagfeldt
@osterloh_frank
please investigate. How could reviwers miss so obvious issues?
1
1
4
0
4
11
This paper was cited 84 times.
@WileyGlobal
Welcome. I have many other similar stories to share with you
@WileyGlobal
. Take this one for example. Almost every figure is fake but authors got away with mega - erratum. High IF journal Small.
3
3
19
0
2
10
16 authors with 13 affiliations are responsible for this badly prepared copy paste "XRD" published in
@SciReports
Three parts are connected by wave like pieces. I have no doubt authors will provide much better copy paste to "correct" this paper.
1
1
11
Binsong Wang of Heilongjiang University has now more questions to answer at PubPeer. This figure will be difficult to explain by mistake of unexperienced student.
@ElsevierConnect
Many affiliations with "key laboratory" are found in PubPeer comments. For this paper 2 authors replied blaming mistake with export of data to explain unusual XRD patterns. Four years later this paper is still on line with the same figure.
4
0
8
0
0
11
Some journals are ready to cover most outrageous fraud. Like this IF=13 journal Small. Four figures XRD and EDS were fabricated (reported in 2021). Small published "correction" replacing 3 EDS. No mention of XRD. Please retract
@wileyinresearch
1
2
10
One more remarkable "XRD" with drunk peaks in
@MDPIOpenAccess
journal. This product is result of collaboration between:
Saudi Arabia
India
Tunisia
Jordan
Iraq
Poland
"Academic Editor: Farooq Sher" has own impressive record at PubPeer.
@fxcoudert
2
0
10
This paper is on Pubpeer since 2020. I just added one more comment specially for experts in XPS readers
@waldronc
and
@WarwickXPS
IF=7.9 ACS Journal of Applied Nanomaterials by
@ACSPublications
don't care, you will waste your time reporting it.
3
1
10
Thanks to
@SmutClyde
we know that everything falsifiable was already falsified in some papers. Now I am adding DSC to my personal long list of methods which need to be checked.
First time I find DSC scans with clear repetitive copy-paste fragments.
1
2
9
If it was parody on XRD patterns, I could laugh together with authors. But no, they are seriously presenting it as experimental data. In two copies to make it more convincing.
1
1
9
@unibielefeld
Bielefeld University, please investigate some old papers published by Patrick Mountapmbeme Kouotou and Katharina Kohse-Höinghaus (and some more co-authors).
0
1
1
@SpringerNature
and
@WileyGlobal
Can you please ask authors BEFORE publication which data affect their conclusions and which are not? Or may be ask for simple statement: "no data in this paper affect results and conclusions".
1
1
9
Many affiliations with "key laboratory" are found in PubPeer comments. For this paper 2 authors replied blaming mistake with export of data to explain unusual XRD patterns. Four years later this paper is still on line with the same figure.
4
0
8
Highlights 2023. n/100
Copy pasting repetitive pices of noise into XRD patterns is obviousy stupid. Little more smart authors insert it after horizontal flip. Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy by
@ElsevierConnect
provides good example of using mirror.
3
1
7
Randomly spotted paper appeared to be already on PubPeer. I am happy to add this NOT diffraction papttern after comment by
@MicrobiomDigest
0
0
7
It is interesting how often
@SciReports
advertise on Twitter papers with very obvious research integrity issues. I wonder if it is something with editor's selecting papers or they simply don't have anything better than that.
@SciReports
How difficult is to see that Fig.3 is fake? The noise is all the same in three patterns except for region of "SiO2". Do you actually send papers for review? Please retract it.
2
0
4
0
2
8
@MicrobiomDigest
@AbalkinaAnna
Completely agree. Imagine food store claiming that quality controls must be done by farmers. Like in this example, governments need to do more to ensure quality controls on all levels. Stores will pay penaly for rotten tomatoes but selling rotten papers is ok now.
0
0
8
I am sure
@SciReports
will nominate this paper for their "top 100" in Chemistry.
@SpringerNature
, please do something. It is 2024 now and this paper somehow passed per review.
1
0
8
2023 was intense year and it is time to look back at some highlights.
I start with
@JPhysChem
paper. Almost every figure faked. At least one of faked figures was published again 2 years later. Do you see? All 4 spectra are derived from the same source.
0
1
8
The same authors produced this piece of graphic art and published it in
@RSCAdvances
Dashed lines and "Pisa tower" peaks impressed reviewers to the degree of acceptance.
0
0
7
I discovered new "Law of Corrections." If data duplication is found in two papers, it is always the less important paper which will be corrected. If the same data are published in Nature Nanotechnology and Carbon, mistake will always be in Carbon.
1
0
7
0
2
7
Every time I see fraud in old papers I think about competition for next level jobs won using unfair methods. First author of 2014 paper is now Prof. How many more had won this competition by similar methods? What to expect from their groups?
3
3
7
It took only three (3) years to retract this paper, but anyway. It looks like some kind of miracle when MDPI retracts. Is it a new trend? Let's hope ....
2
1
7
This paper was cited 176 times.... That is how Journal of Molecular Liquids by
@ElsevierConnect
got IF =6
0
1
7
Dec 29 I reported 3 papers of Prof. Hermergildo Gracia with fake NMR spectra to "Chemistry-A European Journal". Editors accepted correction. their trust to authors is infinite.
@MicrobiomDigest
here
https://pubpeer.com/publications/69E6F6F18CA2D4A42F744550D4EB5E
Prof. Hermenegildo Gracia's records from 2008-2010 include several fake NMR spectra. For example, two papers published in Chemistry of Materials by
@ACSPublications
These are well cited papers. Will you investigate
@ChemMater
?
0
0
2
2
0
5
@NottmTrentUni
Please explain to your Lecturer that the whole point of publishing papers is to make data "supporting the findings" accessible to readers and reviewers. The author insists that each reader must request data for his 23 papers on PP by mail
1
1
4
Two other examples of similar SEM images by the same authors (only one retracted) :
0
0
6
@JPhysChem
I will do it. Please you also do something with this paper:
Some authors don't like experiments. It is easier to take XRD pattern, to shift peaks horizontally and to add peaks they need. But this piece of art remains on line until the rest of their days. Life is all about choices.
@JPhysChem
please retract.
2
3
16
0
0
4
@SciReports
@MicrobiomDigest
Now first author claims it was him who commented using the name of last author. Both first and last authors refuse to answer any questions on PP. Goofd that editor of
@scirep
promised to investigate this paper. We all hope for rapid retraction.
0
1
5
The Law of Bad Science (by Dayo Maor).
Authors which get away with publishing fraud in their paper will do it again. The same authors as in my earlier twit today also produced this impressive piece of art. Publishe dby
@ChemElectroChem
@WileyGlobal
1
1
5
Some examples of Chemosphere papers. How could any reviewer or reader NOT to see problems with this "XRD"? Almost all other figures are duplications with other papers but chances for retraction are close to zero. Editors don't care.
0
1
4
There is no need to retract or correct papers now. If fake is spotted, it can be fixed by "update". Green and orange patterns are identical but shifted in horizontal direction.
@NatureNano
helped authors to hide it by replacing SI file.
@fxcoudert
3
1
4
M. Ubaidullah credit himself to be 2% scientist in the World. He published 26 papers in 2024 (~3 .5 days/paper) and 66 in 2023. Nothing was done in 3 months about this paper. Please
@scierep
, learn from your author. 3.5 days/retraction would be fine.
This paper is "editors choice" by
@SciReports
Abnormal noise and shape of major peaks is really, really difficult not to spot in 3 sec.
3
1
12
1
1
4
Why to make real experiments? Faking data for one more sample saves time.
@ElsevierConnect
accepted 2 corrigendums for 2 figures, it does not affect any conclusions (as usual). Note horizontal shift of spectra which was the main point in this figure.
2
0
5
Amusing AI generated tortured phrase in the battery related paper exposed by A.Magazinov. Authors explain that "tall vitality" is now commonly accepted instead of "long life" and .. expose 4 other papers of their brothers in arms to prove the point.
0
0
5
Next paper by the same authors was published in high IF journal Advanced Energy Materials.
@RSC_Energy
must be ashamed of correction replacing FIVE (5) "incorrect figures" which never affected any conclusions.
@fxcoudert
@MicrobiomDigest
0
0
4
@SciReports
This paper was cited 81 times. Surely these 81 papers are of high standard and quality.
0
0
4
@SciReports
How difficult is to see that Fig.3 is fake? The noise is all the same in three patterns except for region of "SiO2". Do you actually send papers for review? Please retract it.
2
0
4
@ScientistsLift
90% of all published papers do not contribute to any science. It should not have been published at all saving public money.
0
0
4
This paper was cited 295 times. Two XRD patterns are obviously identical, including all noise. Prof. Hermenegildo Garcia of
@ITQ_UPVCSIC
just received new award for "excellence". I hope he takes some actions.
0
0
4
Highlights 2023 continued. This journal claims IF=7.7
@JEnvironChemEng
do you care? Please retract this paper.
@ElsevierConnect
do you have any control over your journals?
0
0
4
Very strange "Raman spectra" in IF 11.9 Journal of Material Chemistry A by
@RoySocChem
Editors,
@AHagfeldt
@osterloh_frank
please investigate. How could reviwers miss so obvious issues?
1
1
4
Imact factor is not reflecting quality of journal and papers. Not anymore. Here is what IF=9.4 Journal of Energy Storage published after per review as "XRD pattern"
@ElsevierConnect
@ElsevierEnergy
Hand drawn (?) peaks and around 42 degrees the peak bends to left side.
1
0
4
@mortenoxe
@AmerChemSociety
Exactly. There are incentives to publish as much as possible and zero incentives to retract fake papers. Moreover, it saves money to do nothing about fake papers.
1
0
3
How do you think, will
@SciReports
retract this top 58 in Chemistry paper? I suggest they start with making new Bottom 100 in Chemistry list and find suitable place for this paper there.
@SciReports
How do you select papers for top 100? Figures 1, 3 and 5 got serious issues for this paper listed as top 58 in Chemistry. I hope you retract it not only from this list.
0
0
1
1
0
4
Journal of Power Sources (IF=9.2) is safe if you want to publish fake data. They will accept corrigendum replacing 2 "incorrect" figures without explanation of what was "incorrect." Longwei Yin has long list of similar corrections.
@ElsevierConnect
0
0
3
@ElsevierConnect
Few details about 3 figures now added to PubPeer. Peak shapes are anomalous in principle but also some peaks are drawn as if detector moved back and forth, each time recording different intensity values at the same positions.
0
1
3
Highlights 2023 continued.
Many papers with copy pasted "Zombie" spectra and patterns were spotted in RSC Advances
@AdvancesRsc
No reaction so far e.g. to this PP post. No reply from authors either.
1
0
3