Another Controversial Paper from Frontiers

Sensing risk, fearing uncertainty systems science approach to change

“Nonsense.”

Some scientists have identified a published, scholarly article they consider nonsense, but the paper’s publisher, Lausanne-based Frontiers, has so far refused to take any action to correct or retract the article, despite a growing consensus against the article’s soundness and despite numerous appeals.

The article is “Sensing risk, fearing uncertainty: systems science approach to change” by Ivo P. Janecka of the Foundation for Systems Research and Education, a supposedly New York-based organization that apparently has no website.

Scientists are engaging in boundary-work, hoping to demarcate the article as unscientific and therefore unsuitable for publication in a supposedly scientific journal. They have repeatedly emailed the publisher and requested an investigation, they have complained to the Committee on Publication Ethics, and they have used PubPeer to engage with the article’s sole author and explain why they think it is unscientific.

So far, none of this work has been successful, for the questionable paper remains published. Emails forwarded to me indicate that scientists started seeking action on the article at least as early as Summer, 2015.

The work of one researcher to correct the record has even resulted in action from a lawyer demanding that he cease communicating with current Frontiers employee Mirjam J. Curno.

The comments about the article left on PubPeer are telling and convincing. Here’s a selection:

  • My deepest apologies to the author if this isn’t the case, but this paper reads as though it is computer generated. Our group was cited by it, but I can’t make any sense of why.
  • This article does appear to be absolute gibberish. And indeed the names of the editor and the three referees who are supposed to have accepted this appear on the article:

Edited by:
Tobias Alecio Mattei, Ohio State University, USA

Reviewed by:
Damian Stephen, Harvard University, USA
Tobias Alecio Mattei, Ohio State University, USA
David Kronemyer, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

  • The figures appear incoherent within themselves. Is this one of those “tests” of the peer review system to see what can get through?
  • Agreed. Only further strengthens my resolve not to publish in Frontiers again. Seems like they’ve completely lost it.
  • Frontiers got paid, that seems to be the important part. Science is incidental.

Problems at COPE

"The Battle for Open Access ... "

“The Battle for Open Access … “

COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, is experiencing problems that are affecting its credibility. Some believe that it has succumbed to cronyism, and as evidence of this they point to the election of Frontiers employee Mirjam J. Curno to COPE’s eleven-member Trustee Board.

I guess if you own a major pay-to-publish operation known for regularly accepting payments to publish highly-questionable scholarly articles, having one of your employees on COPE’s Trustee Board could be quite convenient.

The COPE board’s chair, Virginia Barbour, has regrettably politicized COPE by writing strident essays favoring open-access and attacking Elsevier. She uses military metaphors (“The battle for open access is far from over”) to fan the flames.

I think it’s inappropriate for a publishing ethics board chair to publicly favor one publishing model over another, to singularly attack one publisher that uses her unfavored model, and to politicize a so-called ethics organization.

Moreover, like many open-access zealots, Barbour underhandedly fails to acknowledge today’s most significant source of ethical failures in scholarly publishing — and the biggest threat to science — predatory publishers and journals.

Increasingly, those who draw large salaries from open-access publishing are the most fervent proponents of it. Their ideology supports their paychecks, or the other way around.

Frontiers

Frontiers makes its money from authors; they are the company’s customers. A business has to keep its customers happy to survive, and that’s Frontiers’ strategy here. Frontiers does not want to become known as a publisher that retracts papers, for this will result in a decrease in submissions and therefore revenue.

Frontiers’ peer reviewers have told me that the publisher’s in-house journal management system makes it virtually impossible to recommend a paper be rejected, a strategy designed to keep potential revenue from fleeing elsewhere. [Update: Frontiers now informs me that its journal management system now offers reviewers the option to recommend a paper be rejected.]

Other publishers have the same strategy expressed through different means. For example, this is why so many legitimate publishers and societies now have “easy acceptance” mega-journals: keep the money in-house.

Both Frontiers and COPE have been counterproductive in resolving the questionable nature of this article and its ongoing published status. The only worthy work has come from the operators of PubPeer, who have provided a platform to let the voice of scientists be heard.

Hat tip: Klaas van Dijk

19 Responses to Another Controversial Paper from Frontiers

  1. Keith Fraser says:

    I don’t think this was written by computer. It looks more like something written by someone with an inflated opinion of their own genius waffling on and on and making reference to all sorts of different things without really saying very much. It reads like the front page of some New Age/pseudoscience/self-help website (or a promo on LinkedIn for a book in a similar vein), not a scientific paper. Notably, it doesn’t seem to describe any actual computation, studies or models; if it were the front page of such a website, I’d expect to have to buy the author’s book or shell out to go on their course to find out their secret.

    Check out some extracts from the author’s response to criticism, which is about as coherent as the actual “paper”:

    ‘To see the interconnectedness/inter-relationships of all biologic systems, and thus the validity of Systems Science, many still prevailing concepts may need to be reconsidered and modified; however, such is the process of discovery, and history often shows that the higher the “temperature” of comments, the more likely the scientific paper does contain contributions that, eventually, prove its usefulness/validity.’

    ‘all writers are also biologic systems in their own right and can be either system “optimizing” or “non-optimizing.” The outcome of my reflection was the realization that Systems Science highlights the importance of “relationships” and, among all them, the one with “Self” assumes primacy. In such a scenario, the perceived need for defense of “Self’s Ego” by any individual biologic system often invokes the toxic power of emotions eliminating any rationality and simultaneously leaving basic courtesy in any dialog behind.’

  2. Andy Gilbey says:

    I thought I’d add that Ivo Janecko is a Professor at Harvard and has published in some good journals. However, I have read other similar articles published in Frontiers.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      Someone in the paper’s PubPeer thread linked to this recent article by Janecko:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1891444/
      Which is basically “cancer, fractals, chaos theory, yadda yadda, cancer can be cured by persuading cancer cells to turn non-cancerous”.

      The journal in that case is “International Journal of Medical Sciences” — an OA publisher of uncertain provenance (they operate out of an Australian forwarding address in an attempt to be Western), who have also given us “Theranostics” (!) and the “Journal of Genomics”.

      I am tempted to send it to Orac at Resp.Insolence in the hope of winding him up.

  3. I would like to refer readers of this blog post to various public statements of couragous Iraqi ornithologists and conservationalists about a faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warber in a Taylor & Francis journal. These statements have been copy/pasted to an entry at Pubpeer, see https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7
    .
    These couragous Iraqi scientists expect leadership from COPE, after COPE told me on 26 July 2015 that my three complaints filed at COPE against publisher Taylor & Francis about their refusal to retract this faulty paper were valid, that COPE should contact publisher Taylor & Francis, and that I should get in cc the correspondence.
    .
    In stead, all of us have been turned down by COPE, and already several times. Nothing of the correspondence of COPE with publisher Taylor & Francies has been received until today, despite numerous reminders to various parties. The membership assistant of COPE is in charge to process my three complaints. This membership assistant of COPE is Iratxe Puebla. She is an employee of PLOS (currently Managing Editor of PLOS ONE). Iratxe Puebla does not respond and queries to PLOS about this ongoing issue only yields loads and loads of auto-replies from PLOS.
    I am hereby inviting Mirjam Curno to explain to me in this blog post why I have until now not received this correspondence with Taylor & Francis about the faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler in a Taylor & Francis journal. I am also inviting Mirjam Curno to provide the readers of this blog post with her opinions about this paper.
    .
    I also would like to note that I am closely working together with at least three persons who are EiC (or hold a more or less similar position) of journals who are not member of COPE. The three journals in question are:
    * The Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club ( http://boc-online.org/bulletin/ ).
    * Sandgrouse ( http://www.osme.org/sandgrouse ).
    * British Birds ( http://britishbirds.co.uk/ ). This journal did not hesitate to publish http://britishbirds.co.uk/article/basrareedwarblergate/ (of course also published in the hard copy).
    I am hereby inviting Mirjam Curno to explain to me on this blog post the benefits of these three journals to join COPE.
    .
    I am also working closely together with Dr Burton ( http://www.worldlandtrust.org/about/john-burton ), another co-author of http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09397140.2015.1023424 Dr Burton is a hard-core conservationalist and a very busy man. His e-mails are therefore always very concise. I am inviting Mirjam Curno to comment on an e-mail of Dr Burton sent in cc to COPE on 6 September 2015. (“A summary of the whole affair, but concentrating on the Academia cover up in Nature?”). This e-mail refers to my three complaints filed at COPE against publisher Taylor & Francis (see above).
    .
    I would like to thank in advance Mirjam Curno for het willingness to provide me with a public response at this blog of Jeffrey Beall on all of my queries about the faulty paper in a Taylor & Francis journal, and on the steps COPE has until not set to ensure that the 2013-paper, and a 2015 comment, will be retracted, ASAP, and fully in line with the guidelines of COPE.

  4. […] in Computational Neuroscience, Jeffrey Beall segnala "another controversial paper" di Ivo P. Janecka – un tempo professore di […]

  5. Nils says:

    This post on another blog (seen on RW) pretty much sums it up:
    http://neuroconscience.com/2016/01/15/is-frontiers-in-trouble/
    Notice in particular the “inability to outright reject crackpot papers” issue also raised in the comments.

    • Wazzup? says:

      I am confused, Nils, the author of that blog, Micah Allen, published a paper in 2011 in a Frontiers journal, and viewed 19250+ times:

      Allen, M. & G. Williams (2011). Consciousness, plasticity, and connectomics: the role of intersubjectivity in human cognition. Frontiers in Psychology.
      http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00020/abstract

      Was Allen’s experience sour? Or was that a nonsense paper?

      • Nils says:

        Allen writes
        “As a proud author of two Frontiers articles and former frequent reviewer, these issues compounded with a general poor perception of the journal recently led me to stop all publication activities at Frontiers outlets”.
        For a description of the “issues”, see the very first paragraph of the blog entry.

  6. herr doktor bimler says:

    Another recent Frontiers paper, published posthumously by recently-deceased autism-cure-scammer Bradstreet and his mockademic colleagues:
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2015.00485/full

    It doesn’t say much, being an attempt to claim that recent work published in Nature was a replication of an earlier exercise in quackery from the same cabal (also pumped out through Frontiers); and is noteworthy mainly for the authors’ <A href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=199957646696501&story_fbid=1267404596618462&quot;, where they present Frontiers as an equally-prestigious imprint of Nature:

    It is worth noticing that Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, is a Journal that is associated with the Nature Publishing Group, the most prestigious in the world. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience has become the #1 most-cited journal in psychology, the #1 most-cited open access journal dedicated to neuroscience and the 10th most-cited journal in all of neuroscience. It is also the 2nd and 3rd largest journal in all of psychology and neuroscience, respectively.

    Forgive me while I pimp my own response to the paper.

  7. stevelaudig says:

    Some may consider this a side issue, so be it, but “Frontiers” doesn’t exist except as a legal shadow of individuals. The individuals should be named. The corporation [if it is such a thing] must, in order to be credible, fully disclose all ownership interests. If this “thing” doesn’t fully disclose “who it is” it has zero credibility. It’s only fair that one knows “who” one is talking to. cheers.

  8. I would like to note that there is until now no response from the side of Frontiers and/or Dr Janecka (the author of the nonsense paper) and/or COPE and/or Dr Curno with their points of view.
    .
    I have therefore sent an e-mail to Frontiers in which I have invited them to join the debate over here. I have also told Frontiers in this e-mail (sent to them on 20 January 2016) that for example Dr. Franck Vazquez, the Chief Scientific Officer of publisher MDPI, quickly joined the debate at https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/08/25/more-pseudo-science-from-swiss-chinese-publisher-mdpi/ .
    .
    Publisher MDPI retracted within a few days a nonsense paper, and was thus able to repair very quickly a horrible mistake. Publisher MDPI was also once listed at https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers, but got removed from the list after an appeal. The quick response of Dr. Vazquez, together with a quick acting to retract a nonsense paper, indicates that it was a correct decision that MDPI was removed from https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers .
    .
    Mirjam Curno is also listed as chair of the Subcommittee “Outreach and Events” of COPE (see
    http://publicationethics.org/about/subcommittees ). Two of the objectives of the Subcommittee “Outreach and Events” are:
    * “Increase awareness of COPE globally, across all disciplines, and within the existing membership, as well as attract new members.”
    * “Organize events and activities that deliver educational resources, practical support and further discussion in the field. These could include standalone events as well as collaborative seminars, forums, workshops, or virtual resources.”
    .
    Mirjam Curno has until now not participated in a ‘further discussion in the field’, at Pubpeer and over here, about fncom.2014.00030 I also would like to note that Mirjam Curno has not yet provided me with a list of benefits for the three journals (British Birds, Sandgrouse and The Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club ( http://boc-online.org/bulletin and http://www.osme.org/sandgrouse and http://britishbirds.co.uk ) to join COPE. The bold statement of Dr Burton, sent in cc to COPE on 6 September 2015, (“A summary of the whole affair, but concentrating on the Academia cover up in Nature?”, see https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7 and https://pubpeer.com/publications/7DA806A8062EF9474F1A53717B9D1D#fb36200 for backgrounds) has until now not been rebutted by anyone of COPE. This of course includes Mirjam Curno of Frontiers. Iratxe Puebla, the membership assistant of COPE, has also not yet provided me with the correspondence of COPE with publisher Taylor & Francis about the faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler. So what’s going on over here?

  9. There are new comments in the Pubpeer entry about the nonsense paper in Frontiers (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/AAEB117C8D008CB8EDCC5B88E0884B , also with a comment from Dr. Janecka). There are also new comments in the Pubpeer entry about COPE (see https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/2E91E8916236A6EE03F372E64FBBAF ).
    .
    I finally would like to note that I have until today (Friday 29 January 2016) not received any of the correspondence of COPE with publisher Taylor and Francis about a faulty paper in a TF journal. This implies that I am already waiting 187 days to get this correspondence. Various reminders to various parties were until now also unsuccessful. So what’s going on over here?

  10. Virginia Barbour, the chair of COPE, states on her biography at http://publicationethics.org/about/council/virginia-barbour that she is a director of WAME (“As well as being Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) she is a Director of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).”).
    .
    http://www.wame.org/about/wame-executive-board-and-committees lists Jose Florencio F. Lapeña Jr and Chris Zielinski as current (Jan 2016–Dec 2017) directors of WAME. Phaedra E. Cress, Fatema Jawad and Rajeev Kumar are listed as former directors of WAME. I have contacted Margaret Winker, the secretary of WAME, to get insight in this issue. Dr Winker told me: “Dr Barbour was formerly a WAME Director”.
    .
    http://www.wame.org/about/wame-executive-board-and-committees lists Virginia Barbour as one of the members of the ‘Ethics and Policy Committee’ of WAME. Margaret Winker confirmed to me that this information is correct.
    .
    This all implies that Virginia Barbour presents at the moment wrong/outdated information about her current position at WAME for anyone who is reading her biography at http://publicationethics.org/about/council/virginia-barbour
    .
    I am hereby inviting Virginia Barbour to explain to the readers of this blog post why she is presenting wrong/outdated information at her biography at COPE about her current position at WAME and how this is in line with for example the goals of WAME at http://www.wame.org/about
    .

  11. I am in a final stage to submit a manuscript in which I refer to the 2009 retraction guidelines of COPE. It turns out that there are at least five (identical?) papers in which these guidelines have been published.

    1. Wager, E., V. Barbour, S. Yentis & S. Kleinert, on behalf of COPE Council 2009. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics. Journal of Critical Care 24: 620–622.
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.10.009

    2. Wager E., V. Barbour, S. Yentis & S. Kleinert (on behalf of COPE Council) 2009. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas 64: 201–203.
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.09.018

    3. Wager, E., V. Barbour, S. Yentis & S. Kleinert (on behalf of COPE Council) 2009. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal 50: 532–535.
    http://www.cmj.hr/2009/50/6/20017220.htm
    DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532

    4. Wager E., V. Barbour, S. Yentis & S. Kleinert and on behalf of COPE Council 2010. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Obesity Reviews 11: 64–66.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00702.x

    5. Wager E., V. Barbour, S. Yentis & S. Kleinert on behalf of COPE Council 2009. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology 9: 447-449.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19965313
    http://www.anakarder.com/jvi.aspx?pdir=anatoljcardiol&plng=eng&volume=9&issue=6
    http://www.journalagent.com/anatoljcardiol/pdfs/AnatolJCardiol_9_6_447_449.pdf
    no DOI?

    Anyone with an idea which one can be listed in the references of my manuscript?

  12. Jeffrey Beall wrote in this blog post: “COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, is experiencing problems that are affecting its credibility. Some believe that it has succumbed to cronyism (…)”.
    .
    Jeffrey Beall wrote also in this blog post: “The COPE board’s chair, Virginia Barbour, has regrettably politicized COPE by writing strident essays favoring open-access and attacking Elsevier. She uses military metaphors (“The battle for open access is far from over”) to fan the flames.”
    .
    The current Complaints Administrator of COPE ( http://publicationethics.org/cope-staff ) is Iratxe Puebla.
    .
    Iratxe Puebla is a member of the staff of OA publisher PLOS and is currently acting as Managing Editor of the journal PLOS ONE. Iratxe Puebla promised me on 26 July 2015 to sent me in cc the correspondence of her with publisher Taylor & Francis about a faulty paper in a TF journal, see https://pubpeer.com/publications/7DA806A8062EF9474F1A53717B9D1D#fb36200
    .
    I have until now, 12 March 2015, not received a single piece of this correspondence. I am therefore already waiting 230 days on getting this correspondence. I have of course sent several reminders. A representative of COPE told me on 11 September 2015 that COPE would no longer open e-mails from my side. I have urged this representative a few times to forward to me the correspondence of Iratxe Puebla with publisher Taylor & Francis. This was unsuccessful. I have therefore contacted other parties, for example also publisher PLOS. I have sent various reminders to PLOS, until now without getting the correspondence. Iratxe Puebla does not respond.
    .
    Dr. Kamoun and Dr. Zipfel have recently published a letter in Nature in which they state that an obvious refusal to correct errors / mistakes must also be regarded as scientific misconduct ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/531173e.html ).
    .
    I hold the opinion that the above listed behaviour of Iratxe Puebla falls within the definition of scientific misconduct as defined by Dr. Kamoun and Dr. Zipfel, see also http://www.tsl.ac.uk/about-tsl/scientific-integrity/
    .
    I have therefore decided to file a formal complaint at publisher PLOS against Iratxe Puebla. This complaint was filed on 28 February 2016. My decision to file such a complaint was not an easy one and the decision was taken after several reminders to OA publisher PLOS remained unanswered (I only receive auto-replies with new case numbers). See below for the contents of this complaint. I have until now only received two auto-replies from PLOS.
    .
    Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side.
    .
    .
    “From: Klaas van Dijk; To: plosone; Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:26 PM; Subject: A formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commmited by PLOS employee Iratxe Puebla

    Dear PLOS et al,

    I would like to report that Iratxe Puebla, the Managing Editor of PLOS ONE, is currently deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct.

    Numerous efforts, and already for a prolonged period of time, to convince Iratxe Puebla to stop with the above mentioned behaviour were unsuccessful. I have therefore concluded that it is intentional behaviour of Iratxe Puebla to continue with her efforts to cover up a clear case of scientific misconduct.

    I am therefore lodging a formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct committed by Iratxe Puebla.

    The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf states: “It also includes the wilful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others.”

    That’s what is going on over here.

    The VSNU Code of Conduct ( http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/code-wetenschapsbeoefening-14-en.pdf and http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/wetenschappelijke-integriteit-12-en.pdf ) states:

    “Regarding the behaviour types listed below, the universities hereby declare that they categorically reject them, are actively fighting them, and if necessary will punish offenders with all the sanctions at their disposal. Violations of academic integrity include the following: (…). Permitting and concealing the misconduct of colleagues.”

    I suggest to punish Iratxe Puebla with a severe sanction.

    Backgrounds are listed in:
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/7DA806A8062EF9474F1A53717B9D1D#fb36200
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/1C6B56C6600F850C0320D4161278E8#fb43193
    https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/join-the-committee-ignore-publication-ethics/
    https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/frontiers-christmas-carol/
    https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/12/one-problem-with-the-scholarly-publishing-industry/
    https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/14/another-controversial-paper-from-fronters
    https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/2E91E8916236A6EE03F372E64FBBAF
    https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/16/seralini-feed-contamination-study-plos-fire-not-following-guidelines-data-access/

    Thanks in advance for sending me a response in which is stated that my formal complaint against Iratxe Puebla was received by PLOS in good order.

    Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side.

    Best wishes,

    Klaas van Dijk / Groningen / The Netherlands / https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=hmhMcScAAAAJ&hl=en

    DISCLAIMER: I am hereby declaring that that this e-mail is prepared in good faith, that this is also the case for all other e-mails from my side to PLOS and to all other parties about the ongoing issues about a faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler. I am hereby declaring that all of these e-mails from my side are 100% honest e-mails. Anyone who is claiming that I am dishonest, and/or that my behaviour is partial, and/or vexatious and/or that my statements about the paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warber are untrue / false (etc.), will first need to provide me access to the full list of requested raw research data (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7#fb31538 for the full list), and will need to accept that Richard Porter and his co-workers can scrutinize this entire set of raw research data. (I, Richard Porter and all co-authors of a rebuttal of Richard Porter state the paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler is loaded with fabricated data).”

    ——————————–

    “From: PLOS ONE; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:21 PM; Subject: Auto-Reply: A formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commmited by PLOS employee Iratxe Puebla

    Dear Klaas van Dijk

    Thank you for contacting PLOS ONE. We will respond to your email as soon as we are able.

    In the meantime, you may find the answer to your query here:
    PLOS ONE Video Shorts http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/plos-one-video-shorts/
    Frequently Asked Questions http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/authors/qa/
    Reviewer Guidelines http://www.plosone.org/static/reviewerGuidelines.action

    Kindest regards,

    PLOS ONE Case 04430062 PL#0N3_AR ref:_00DU0Ifis._500U0RIuz6:ref”

    ———————————————–

    “From: “PLOS ONE”; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 11:11 AM; Subject: Auto-Reply: Fw: A formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commmited by PLOS employee Iratxe Puebla

    Dear Klaas van Dijk

    Thank you for contacting PLOS ONE. We will respond to your email as soon as we are able.

    In the meantime, you may find the answer to your query here:
    PLOS ONE Video Shorts http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/plos-one-video-shorts/
    Frequently Asked Questions http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/authors/qa/
    Reviewer Guidelines http://www.plosone.org/static/reviewerGuidelines.action

    Kindest regards,

    PLOS ONE Case 04442239 PL#0N3_AR ref:_00DU0Ifis._500U0RkFzm:ref”

  13. […] publicó un artículo de negacionismo en torno al SIDA. En otro caso, fue criticado por publicar un artículo en torno a una supuesta cerrazón de la comunidad científica a ideas nuevas. A pesar de ello, hay […]

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: