The post-publication peer review (PPPR) has become a heated discussion topic. Precisely, the issue is not whether PPPR is necessary (the opposition comes only from the most system-entrenched dinosaurs or from those who have their good reasons to fear PPPR). It is the anonymity of PPPR which is under debate. The discussion was kicked-off by Michael Blatt, botany professor at the University of Glasgow, in an editorial in the journal Plant Physiology, where he is editor-in-chief. Blatt’s concern was the perceived lack of responsibility behind the anonymous public criticisms left on the PPPR internet platform PubPeer. Soon enough, his editorial was hotly debated on PubPeer as well, including by myself, and most prominently, by the physics professor from University of Nottingham, Philip Moriarty. Moriarty has a strong record of promoting research integrity and reproducibility, yet he always does it in the open and is strongly opposed to anonymity in academic discussions. Hence, he lent his support to Blatt by calling for openness at PPPR, decrying the insistence on anonymity behind even the most “innocuous” PubPeer comments.
I have been in personal contact with Blatt and Moriarty, and my initial scepticism gave way to my support of their ideas. Importantly, they both agree on the need for the whistle-blower protection where data integrity concerns are reported. Blatt is convinced that the identity of the whistle-blower should be known at least to the direct recipient of evidence, whose task would be to treat it fully confidentially. Moriarty’s case however is less with the accusations of possible data manipulation and misconduct, but with the scientific discussion, which is exactly what PPPR is about. He sees no reason to hide one’s identity while expressing objective and thought-through criticisms of a published paper. I tend to agree with him, and will provide below examples on how anonymity in PPPR can become counter-productive or even toxic, while signed PPPR can lead to remarkable results and to personal recognition for named scientists involved therein.
PubPeer was intended and still describes itself as “The Online Journal Club”. Its core concept is anonymity; commenters are free to post either as unnamed “Peer” or as “Unregistered Submission”. In the latter case, not even PubPeer operators have any clue of the commenter’s identity (i.e., beyond the computer IP address). This is exactly why PubPeer never became a proper “journal club” it strived to be, but a whistle-blowing platform instead. As such, PubPeer achieved tremendous results. The list of publications, which were corrected and even retracted following the anonymously presented evidence for data manipulation (mostly image irregularities such as duplications, splicing or inappropriate Photoshop-ping), is very long. Major journals like Nature and Science had to retract papers, while even the most influential scientists had to face institutional investigations or have lost their jobs, thanks to the activities of the anonymous PubPeer users. Meanwhile, many journals now actively track PubPeer and take notice whenever another one of their papers is flagged for possible data manipulation.
Yet where true academic PPPR is concerned, PubPeer’s default anonymity seems more of a hindrance than advantage.
Until their public coming-out on August 31st, even the PubPeer operators themselves were anonymous. But even though their names are now known, the people behind PubPeer for some reason still prefer being seen as an anonymous collective. Their communications are rarely signed by a name, with rare exceptions as in a recent Vox article on peer review shortcomings. There, the PubPeer President and tenured CNRS researcher Brendon Stell was quoted promoting PPPR. Elsewhere, the letters which PubPeer exchanged with Moriarty and which were then published in Times Higher Education, were signed as “The PubPeer organisers”. Fittingly, the topic of their discussion was the anonymity of PPPR. The PubPeer organisers wrote to Moriarty:
“Our experience has been that anonymity greatly facilitates scientific discussion with little if any effect on the quality of comments. […]
The main arguments against anonymity are that it allows commenters to blacken the names of their competitors with impunity and to hide conflicts of interest. Again, our practical experience has been that these issues rarely arise, for several reasons.”
Yet, I myself witnessed on PubPeer authors defending their own papers by anonymous sock-puppetting. There, PubPeer sometimes interfered to delete such comments, but other suspicious posts were left standing. Also the following example shows that anonymity of PubPeer can be easily abused by less trustworthy commenters to hide their ulterior motives and conflicts of interest (COI).
Anonymous Revenge
A seemingly academic discussion started some time ago on the PubPeer thread for a high-profile publication in Cell by Yosef Buganim, currently group leader at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. This 2012 paper dealt with pluripotent stem cell reprogramming and came from one of the most influential labs in this field, namely that of Rudolph Jaenisch at Whitehead Institute in MIT.
An “Unregistered Submission” and later a “Peer 1” questioned the findings of that publication, citing dissonance with research published elsewhere, including in other papers from Jaenisch lab. Below some of the relevant comments, now moderated by PubPeer:
Buganim replied to the criticisms, by posting as Peer 3 and signing with his name. He was supported by anonymous commenters (Peer 4 and Peer 6). The academic argument over data interpretation quickly escalated, with Peer 1 being personally attacked by Buganim and others.
After I questioned these tactics with my own comment, Peer 1 was soon revealed to be none other than Jacob Hanna, another Israeli stem cell researcher whose career is closely intertwined with Buganim’s. Hanna’s postdoctoral studies at the Jaenisch lab overlapped with those of Buganim, the two were therefore direct former lab colleagues and currently direct competitors for limited stem cell research funding in their small country, Israel. But this is only one issue.
Hanna, who leads a large lab at the elite Weizmann Institute of Science, has been accused of heavy data manipulations in a number of his own publications, which include his PhD studies with Ofer Mandelboim at the Hebrew University, his postdoctoral research with Jaenisch at MIT and papers from his own lab back in Israel. Hanna had to retract one publication in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and issue corrections for 10 of his papers due to image duplications and other data irregularities. When faced with accusations of misconduct in regard to his paper in Blood, Hanna blamed his “medical trainees”. And if this is not enough, Hanna apparently somehow managed to have most image evidence of data irregularities in his many criticized papers disappear from PubPeer. His research record did not remain untainted for long, since PubPeer quickly restored most of those images from their own backup server.
As soon as Hanna’s anonymity was blown, and PubPeer was informed, they swiftly interfered. The majority of comments in that thread was deleted in one go, including all revealing references to Hanna. Yet PubPeer let most of his (now once again fully anonymous) criticisms of Buganim’s work stand.
Given all this information, can Hanna be ever deemed as unbiased reviewer for the papers of his former colleagues and direct competitors? For all we know, he might even (rightly or not) suspect some of them to have anonymously flagged his own data integrity issues in the first place. Given the bombastic COI, how reliable are Hanna’s criticisms of the Buganim paper, especially if they are issued from under cover of anonymity? Also, who are these Peers 4 and 6 who took Buganim’s side? Can we trust them to be unbiased observers?
Hanna did not reply to my contact attempts through Twitter and his institutional email. I then approached Buganim about confirming Hanna’s identity as Peer 1. Buganim did reply, but was reluctant to get involved and indicated the conflict was settled for him. However, his replies made it clear that Buganim is likely to have solid evidence that his colleague Hanna has been that anonymous commenter.
The main criticism of traditional journal peer review is its intransparency. COI are often suspected when fishy manuscripts are waved through towards publication, while good research studies are sabotaged by competing or even personally hostile colleagues acting as peer reviewers. Of course, the job of a good journal editor is to prevent such COI, yet the very system of peer review intransparency allows many editors to rig the game without anyone noticing.
The rotten scientific literature coming out of this rotten peer review is what PubPeer wants to combat with their model of anonymous PPPR. However, the above example shows that even the most outrageous COIs can easily creep into anonymous PPPR, and the moderating authority either tolerates or is not always sufficiently able to prevent them.
This is only one argument for the PPPR to be open and named. As the following example shows, signed PPPR is much more likely to be taken seriously by authors, journals and relevant research institutions. Eventually, scientists engaging in open, signed PPPR can even advance their careers and make an internationally recognised name for themselves.
Open protest gets noticed
Johannes M. Dijkstra is immunologist and lecturer at the Fujita Health University in Nagoya, Japan. Though himself not a member of the mile-high impact factor club, Dijkstra has a strong record of named and open PPPR, where he challenged publications in biggest elite journals like Nature, Cancer Cell, Cell as well as in Science. In his email to me, he described his approach to open and signed PPPR:
“I only discuss articles “close to home” when it is absolutely necessary to keep my research field clean, and otherwise choose articles that are further away career-wise and emotionally. I engage in PPPR because I feel that we scientists ourselves have to do something to reduce the flood of bad papers, or silly messages within otherwise good papers, and that starting fair discussions is the best way to do that.”
Dijkstra adds:
“I am very lucky to have a boss who doesn’t consider PPPR a waste of time, but understands that in regard to science as a whole this was a very efficient usage of my time. There is nothing which spoils so much time, thinking and money as bad articles, especially in top journals. I didn’t experience any negative career or networking impact so far. […] You have to be very right if you publicly challenge the articles of others, otherwise people will only consider you as a nuisance. […] If I criticize people to such a large extent, they have the right to know who I am and maybe hold me accountable to the same standards”.
Recently, Dijkstra turned to PubPeer to express his criticisms and even his suspicions of data manipulation on another recent Science publication, Okoye et al, 2015, from the lab of Philip Ashton-Rickardt, immunology professor at Imperial College London. Initially, Dijkstra’s detailed criticisms of that paper were directed at the journal in confidentiality and led only to a controversial Correction, where apparently manipulated data has been replaced with new one. Seeing this, Dijkstra decided to issue his open and signed peer review on PubPeer. From there, things began to move properly.
The correction was soon followed by an editorial Expression of Concern, prompted by the institutional investigation from the side of the Imperial College. Though Dijkstra was supported by anonymous commenters on PubPeer when flagging additional image manipulations, the question remains if his concerns would have been taken seriously if he himself chose to comment anonymously as well. This is one discovery of what the Ashton-Rickardt paper contained, as presented on PubPeer:
There are quite a number of other examples where serious image manipulations were anonymously flagged on PubPeer, only to be “fixed” with some embarrassing corrections or painstakingly ignored by the authors and the journals. There is probably an even higher (dark) number of cases where signed concerns were confidentially mailed to the journal editors, and then quietly disappeared in their drawers for all eternity.
Combining the advantages of both approaches might actually do the trick in making reluctant editors sit up and take notice, and this is exactly what Dijkstra did in the case of Okoye et al. He felt compelled to take “the public route through PubPeer”, because Science editors initially responded to his concerns “inadequately”:
“I hope that Science will change its procedure in dealing with suspicions
of misconduct. If they would have investigated the matter more seriously after my initial complaints, we would never have arrived in the current situation. Then there would have been a rather clean retraction, and everyone could have gone back to business. They combined a poor attitude (to avoid retraction at all costs) with lack of proper procedure and a lack of skill to “feel” the severity of the flaws in the Okoye et al. article”.
Whether this paper will be ever retracted by Science, is another question. Important for now is, the academic community has been made aware of its flaws and can now make its own conclusions about its real value. Signed PPPR was an absolute success story in this case. Its author Dijkstra has shared in his email to me his advice for all those who wish to engage in PPPR:
“I think it is better for science and more honorable to make comments under one’s own name, but that I do understand a number of reasons for which people can choose not to do that. I can understand that people want to be able to discuss science on PubPeer or other social media without having to polish their words, or without full engagement of their “science identity”. I also have come to kind of enjoy it as pleasantly tranquil, this lack of names on PubPeer, as it keeps the focus on the issue and not on “my God, who’s saying this”. But then there are instances in which I strongly think “grow some …..” if I see people anonymously attacking other scientists.
In the larger picture of things, I think that the anonymous character of many of the complaints is bad for achieving results. The anonymity makes “us” just look like a bunch of mice shouting over picture duplications. If we really want to change things, we have to sit at the table with the other parties, and that means showing our face. I hope that PPPR becomes more common and more normal. It is the best and maybe only way that we scientists can try to improve the standard of publications, instead of always pointing at others who should do that for us”.
However, also Dijkstra is fully aware of the risks, especially those untenured scientists face at named PPPR. Also he has once warned a colleague without permanent position against publicly criticising a certain problematic paper. Dijkstra was concerned about the possible dangers to the career such “troublemaking” might have brought. The resulting conflicts with authors might be strenuous, while potential future employers might not at all value such activities.
The decision about signing one’s name under a public post-publication peer review is therefore a personal one. Sometimes it may be indeed wiser to comment anonymously, but even then one should always be objective, stick to the facts and basic ethics, and avoid acting on hidden conflicts of interest. It is very tempting to leave less thought-through criticisms under the conditions of anonymity, simply because it is so easy to separate oneself from them. This argument was even used by an anonymous commenter in the PubPeer discussion with Moriarty. However, even anonymous commenters should apply same considerations to the content of their criticisms as if they were signing them with their names. Imagine, it is your own paper someone wishes to anonymously comment upon.
Before signing the comment, every scientist doing PPPR has to weight his or her risks, but also consider if these risks are real or only perceived. Making a name in your field as a competent and incorruptible scientist might get you noticed also by the right people who will value your work.
Participating in open and signed PPPR may not be so bad for your career after all.
For Better Science 
A good extension by Schneider to the current discussion on the importance of anonymity in PPPR.
My recently published views on this topic:
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) The importance of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (in press)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23588/abstract
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23588
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) What’s not being discussed, or considered, in science publishing? The Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 16(2): 130-132.
http://jmbe.asm.org/index.php/jmbe/article/view/928/pdf_221
DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.928
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J. (2015) The role of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review versus traditional peer review. KOME 3(2): 90-94.
Click to access KOME_Silva-Dobranszki.pdf
DOI: 10.17646/KOME.2015.27
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology (Public Science Framework) 1(2): 34-37.
http://files.aiscience.org/journal/article/html/70390007.html
(and references therein)
LikeLike
I fully agree with the last three sentences. On the other hand I don’t understand why implicitly or explicitly balming PubPeer (also in the twitter link to the blog). PubPeer is offering a platform, we are free to sign our comments if we wish, and I agree with you that most of the times is more convenient. But I don’t see the point of enforcing a signature (with a real name? how you verify it? is it then compulsory to be an academic or someone with a PhD?). And I would say that a single problematic case (in which banning anonimity would not have solved the problem in my opinion) gives anonymous PPPR (and even less PubPeer PPPR as you explicitly say) a bad reputation
LikeLike
I state specifically in my exchange with PubPeer (the Times Higher article to which Leonid refers) that I certainly am not suggesting that enforcing a signature is the way to go. As you say (and as I also state in the Times Higher article) it would be impossible to enforce this.
What needs to happen is that we move away from the timid, rather grubby culture where scientists — even if there is no possibility of any “fallout” in terms of their career — comment under cover of anonymity. Banning is not the way to do this. The culture needs to change.
Arguments that “Well, only the words matter” I find utterly unconvincing. The words matter. But so too does context. And anonymity sets up an asymmetry in communication which erodes trust and, at worst, debases scientific communication. There’s not just one example of this — there are very many indeed.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments. PubPeer is the only major PPPR platform where anonymous commenting is possible. I also wish to state that, like Philip Moriarty commenting below; I in no way insist on banning the anonymity, far from it. In fact, ways should be found that data integrity issues can be reported in an anonymous manner, without the whistle-blower having to suffer any consequences (Mike Blatt however possibly has a point that this identity should be known to a moderator, who is then to keep it confidential).
In any case, there are major differences between reporting data integrity issues and scientific PPPR.
The former can be easily checked by all readers themselves. There is absolutely no requirement of any research field understanding. Therefore, it does not matter who reported the image duplication or the gel splicing, since the pictures speak for themselves.
The situation is very different when purely scientific discussions are led. Everyone who is not a close expert in the field will have difficulties following what the scientific arguments and counter-arguments are about. This is why it is important to know who is making them, to understand if these arguments are scientifically sound or just an empty string of fancy buzzwords. Is this PPPR commenter actually qualified, i.e., does this person have a sufficient research track record in this field? Obviously, Jacob Hanna does. Are there any conflicts of interest? Well, where to start with Hanna?? This is exactly the approach journal editors have (in theory, unfortunately not always in practice). They vet the academic credentials and COIs of their reviewers before inviting their judgement. With signed PPPR, every reader can look up the commenter’s CV and decide whether this PPPR is to be trusted as objective and qualified. With anonymous PPPR, it is up to (unnamed!) moderators on PubPeer or elsewhere to do this vetting. At least in the case of Hanna, the moderating was somewhat sub-optimal.
LikeLike
At Life Science Network (lifescience.net), anonymous commenting is possible for non-registered users. Rating is always anonymous, full-reviews are always non-anonymous. It’s up to every user to choose. But the features are not used very often.
LikeLike
I agree that area expertise is important for purely scientific discussions and that a name with a CV is useful for vetting credentials. However, if someone is an expert in a field, shouldn’t they be capable of separating sound science from bombastic hyperbole, regardless of the source? As it stands, people most certainly do have the choice of signing reviews and many are refusing to do so. I do not believe that this is because posting anonymously is considered the norm. I believe it is because the current culture does not allow many a scientist to post without fear of repercussions. Then, there are no incentives for those that do. Even well-established scientists have concerns about who may one day sit on their grant review committees. Attempting to change one norm without addressing the other does not sound like an adequate solution.
More than this, I see merit in the idea of forming an argument based solely on logic and evidence. If someone presents a compelling rationale for their position, will reading their CV suddenly enhance the logic of their argument? Regarding COI, I am still under the assumption that facts should stand for themselves. Hanna most certainly had a COI, though I fail to see where he was backing up any of his stances. Unsubstantiated comments and personal attacks should be ignored for they have nothing to add. Personal attacks erode trust, not useful debate.
This can also put young scientists into another tricky position. Exactly how much experience is considered necessary to weigh in on a topic? If a postdoc/ PhD student has a new interesting position to present, what’s to hinder a senior scientist from discounting their argument (especially if it goes against their research) on the basis that the commenter is not yet established enough in the field to have an opinion on a particular topic? Signed comments are great for open honest debate, but there should always be the option, at least in certain contexts, to present an idea or inquiry anonymously.
LikeLike
Thank you for your important discussion points.
I have blogged previously about the advantages of signed PPPR for junior scientists: https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/open-science-open-scientists/
The issue is, how can a PhD student or postdoc build a reputation? To get noticed, one has to publish in the top tier journals, which is obviously not easy to achieve. In my experience, also ethical qualms about data handling and data integrity can interfere with publishing success. One can however make a name by proving one’s competence in signed PPPR. This way, not only is your signed (and well thought-through) comment more likely to get taken seriously, it is also a public evidence of your academic achievements.
Which competence is sufficient? Working in the same research field should do the trick, even if you are a PhD student without yet a single paper of your own. The point is, that the journal editors, authors and all the field related and unrelated readers can see for themselves that you connect your academic career to your commenting and that you are directly involved into such research yourself (never mind for how long). They will take your comments much more seriously then.
Again, i am surely not calling to ban anonymous PPPR. I believe though that signed PPPR is more rewarding, also for the commenter.
LikeLike
“This is why it is important to know who is making them, to understand if these arguments are scientifically sound or just an empty string of fancy buzzwords.”
Totally disagree.
It’s the “experts” who are publishing nonsensical strings of fancy buzzwords, and experts approving them. Arguments should stand or fall on their merits, regardless of the name attached. Using identity as a shortcut to judge merit may be a necessary rule of thumb in many situations, but it should not be a rule of thumb among supposed experts to whom PPPR is directed. In the same (we’ll, not quite) way, an art expert shouldn’t base his judgment of a work of art on the name of the artist.
Of course, no one can really avoid being influenced by the glamor of names, so for a serious judgment, it’s better to leave them out. (I suggest that a “big name” would sign his/her arguments precisely b/c they would know the advantage their prestige will give). (I think Malcolm Gladwell describes how hiding auditioning musicians behind a screen had a big effect on how their playing was judged.)
In sum, if the readers of PPPR comments are competent judges, then names will only muddy the waters. These comments are not for non-competent judges to evaluate using secondary criteria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Lydia, thanks for commenting.
Let me explain why I think names matter. It is not only about being able to see if the commenter has any competence at all, or hidden conflicts of interest.
In fact, I agree that certain senior researchers are rather good at using strings of empty buzzwords. However, they are generally careful before doing this publicly towards their peers. If you sign your name under an incompetent criticism, it can backfire badly. But trolling colleagues from under cover of anonymity can be tempting. Even if your anonymous empty buzzword comment is exposed as such, there is no danger of your facing any responsibility for attacking your peers like this.
LikeLike
“However, they are generally careful before doing this publicly towards their peers.” They do it all the time in published papers!!
LikeLike
and they restrain themselves there a lot and formulate very carefully. Imagine what they would write in full anonymity 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: We are anonymous (or not). We need you to join. We are (mostly) making scientific discussion in the open possible and easy. | Rapha-z-lab
Pingback: Jingmai O’Connor interview: if you have valid criticisms, publish them! – For Better Science
I love your cartoons (and the witty posts too) – a very dangerous combination 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Blatt is back: “open debate cornerstone of scientific process” – For Better Science
Brandon Stell Is the Vigilante of Scientific Publishing
http://chronicle.com/article/Brandon-Stell-Is-the-Vigilante/236007/
By Steve Kolowich April 10, 2016
What can anonymous commenters do, other than sling mud with impunity?
Fix the scientific record, that’s what.
That was Brandon Stell’s thought when he started PubPeer, a website where faceless Internet critics can pick apart scientific papers in…
This content is available exclusively to Chronicle subscribers
Ridiculous.
LikeLike
Pingback: The 3rd editor and failure of ‘proper channels’ – For Better Science
Leonid:
“[. . .]
[. . .] Also he has once warned a colleague without permanent position against publicly criticising a certain problematic paper. Dijkstra was concerned about the possible dangers to the career [. . .]
[. . .]”
Being the author of a published paper (Paul Colin de Gloucester (2013): “Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications”, “Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance”, 20:3, 143-166) criticising a fraudulent supposedly scientific article that was coauthored by the laboratory to which I am affiliated and coauthored by a very wealthy ex-employer that this laboratory wanted to contribute €230 million to our PhD project was dangerous. A lawyer representing me in Portugal submitted to a court:
“[. . .]
25º
Curiosamente, depois de o Autor ter escrito um artigo cientifico acerca de um artigo científico fraudulento elaborado em co-autoria pelo LIP e pela Agencia Espacial Europeia, A FCT, ora Ré, enviou um e-mail para o Autor, a 22 de Julho de 2013, informando o Autor de que estava excluído da avaliação nas unidades de I&D. – cfr. doc. 3, que ora se junta e cujo conteúdo se considera reproduzido para todos os efeitos legais
[. . .]”
Lell:
“[. . .]
[. . .] I see merit in the idea of forming an argument based solely on logic and evidence. If someone presents a compelling rationale for their position, will reading their CV suddenly enhance the logic of their argument? [. . .]
[. . .]”
No. During Summer 2014 a court showed me evidence that the putative physicist “Dr.” João Manuel de Sá Campos Gil witnessed malicious falsehood against me that was perpetrated by the PhD supervisor “Dr.” Rui Miguel Curado da Silva and by two co-directors of the laboratory Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas – LIP (Professor Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte and Professor Rui Ferreira Marques) during 2013. I had been unaware of this malicious falsehood during 2013 and I was not expecting the aggravated assaults which I was subjected to later during 2013 as consequences of this dishonesty. On 4th August 2014 I asked João Manuel de Sá Campos Gil for what reason did he not warn me that I was lied about. He confirmed witnessing this documentation but he dishonestly and very aggressively denied that I was lied about. (I professed that March 2005 was later than February 2005 —
http://162.202.67.158/~gloster/Evil_which_is_so-called_science/Mariano_Gago/Attachment_emailed_to_Gago_during_August_2012.htm
— whereas Rui Miguel Curado da Silva; Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte and Rui Ferreira Marques professed that I provided no evidence for this and that I therefore needed to prove that I was mentally healthy.) João Manuel de Sá Campos Gil aggressively denied lying when he shouted at me: “I know the person” (Between circa 3 hours and 13 minutes after the beginning of
http://Users.NinthFloor.org/~de_ghloucester/This_is_not_your_country!_Go_back_to_Ireland!__filename_Recording_20140804_101602.3gpp
and circa 3 hours and 21 minutes.) I requested “Please use logic instead of anger” but as João Manuel de Sá Campos Gil; Rui Miguel Curado da Silva; Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte and Rui Ferreira Marques are dishonest they could not win on any of the bases of logic and true facts.
Later that day the PhD supervisrix Professrix Maria Filomena de Osório Pinto dos Santos Figueiredo slandered me (“[. . .] you’ve been institutionalized because you were ill [. . .]”) and blood de her stained a copy of court evidence that João Manuel de Sá Campos Gil (and Maria Filomena de Osório Pinto dos Santos Figueiredo and others) witnessed libel against me.
During May 2016 I applied to Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte and LIP for a new grant:
“Dear Dr. Vladimir Solovov; Professor Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte; Professrix Isabel Lopes; and Professor Cláudio Silva:
I apply for a grant in the framework of the project “Deteção direta de matéria escura: participação nas experiências LUX-ZEPLIN e LUX – PTDC/FIS-NUC/1525/2014”. However, because this grant is being handled by the laboratory LIP, and especially because Professor Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte is a member of the jury for this grant, it is necessary to document a number of unpleasant, true facts about Professor Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte and about LIP.
During 2011, I applied to LIP for a grant in the framework of PTDC/FIS/113339/2009 (“Participação na experiência HADES”). Professor Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte was an element of that jury. LIP illegally still did not provide me with a decision on that application.
During 2012, Professor Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte applied pressure on me to not sue Paulo Alexandre Cunha Gomes who lied about me.
During 2013, I requested Professor Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte to provide a letter of recommendation for me. I did not receive feedback from him on this and he did not provide this would-have-been letter of recommendation.
During 2013, LIP perpetrated malicious falsehood against me to the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology when recommending suspension of a doctoral grant of mine and when recommending cancelation of that same doctoral grant. During 2013, LIP lied to me about that doctoral grant and dishonored its offer to recommend withdrawal of its (supposed) suspension (lawyers explained to me during 2014 that that grant was not legally suspended (and therefore no grant of mine was legally suspended)).
Consequences of this dishonesty by LIP included aggravated assaults against me during 2013 and hospitalization of myself. Consequences of these aggravated assaults against me during 2013 and of malconduct by Professrix Maria Filomena de Osório Pinto dos Santos Figueiredo included hospitalization of Professrix Maria Filomena de Osório Pinto dos Santos Figueiredo during 2014.
Dishonorable malconduct that is documented above was partially perpetrated via a document that the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology provided to a tribunal during 2014. This document is dated “8 de Janeiro de 2013” and is supposedly coauthored by Dr. Paulo Jorge Ribeiro da Fonte.
As documented by the attached curriculum vitae, I have experience of developing systems of acquisition of scientific data.
If it would be necessary to email or telephone, please email or telephone via the Serviços de Ação Social e Saúde da Câmara Municipal de Condeixa-a-Nova.
Yours sincerely,
Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouceſter”
They rejected me during July 2016.
Lydia Maniatis:
“[. . .]
It’s the “experts” who are publishing nonsensical strings of fancy buzzwords, and experts approving them. [. . .]
[. . .]”
True. I documented examples with Paul Colin de Gloucester (2013): “Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications”, “Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance”, 20:3, 143-166.
Regards,
Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester
LikeLike
Pingback: Does ERC help cheaters pay protection money? – For Better Science
Pingback: The PubPeer Stars of Weizmann Institute – For Better Science