Since its creation in 2012 by Brandon Stell, PubPeer has established itself as a platform for scientific evaluation after publication, allowing the scientific community and the public to comment on scientific articles. While the initial objective was to promote transparency and scientific integrity, PubPeer is now at the heart of major controversies, accused of bias, lack of independence, instrumentalization to discredit certain researchers, and even of acting in violation of laws such as the RICO Act in the United States.
Its administrator Boris Barbour, of the CNRS, is strongly criticized internally. He is also described as « an ayatollah, he scares researchers and uses PubPeer as a tool of harassment in the same way as fact checkers do « .
This article explores these criticisms, drawing on recent analyses, interviews, publications on X, and concrete cases such as that of Sabine Hazan, while examining the controversial role of the CNRS in similar dynamics, its links with industry, and drawing a parallel with the appointment of Jay Bhattacharya as head of the NIH. an event covered exclusively in France by France-Soir. Finally, we will address Elisabeth Bik’s biases, the laundering of information on PubPeer, information pollution in science, and the insidious links between scientific publications and companies such as Elsevier, in particular via the Couperin agreement.
An investigation by the Citizen Collective.
PubPeer: a highly controversial tool with advantages and limitations
PubPeer has been praised for its ability to comment on and then report errors or fraud in scientific publications, contributing to significant retractions. In 2021, the platform had 120,000 comments on 40,000 articles, demonstrating its adoption by the scientific community. The ability to comment anonymously protects whistleblowers, and cases like those revealed by Elisabeth Bik who boasts of having obtained more than 170 retractions show a positive impact.
However, PubPeer is criticized for its many flaws. The ability to comment anonymously, while useful, encourages personal attacks and malicious comments, often insufficiently moderated. A tool of denunciation where the risk is zero for the whistleblower, and the consequences in terms of image are immediate for the attacked researcher. Despite relevant reports, according to our sources, only 21.5% of problematic articles would receive an editorial correction, limiting its effectiveness. More seriously, PubPeer is accused of serving as a platform for targeted smear campaigns, as in the case of the IHU in Marseille (Didier Raoult) or Sabine Hazan, where researchers believe they are victims of organized harassment.
The detailed and tangible criticisms against PubPeer
PubPeer is a polarizing topic, and the criticisms, supported by concrete evidence, come from several angles:
- Lack of institutional legitimacy : Antoine Petit, president of the CNRS, has publicly criticized PubPeer, stating that the use of an anonymous platform to express scientific doubts “does not make scientific sense” and should not be carried out on researchers’ working time. This position reflects a mistrust of institutions towards a platform perceived as external to the traditional mechanisms of science. In addition, within the CNRS itself, some criticize “the impunity of Barbour who uses this tool as a weapon”.
- Instrumentalization and harassment : in the case of the IHU of Marseille, directed by Didier Raoult, PubPeer has been accused of serving as a platform for systematic smear campaigns. Raoult and his colleague Eric Chabrière filed a complaint in 2021 against Elisabeth Bik and Boris Barbour, co-administrator of PubPeer, for “aggravated moral harassment” and “attempted extortion”. They denounced “copy-pasted” comments without in-depth analysis, targeting publications that were sometimes 15 years old, and described these attacks as “gang harassment”. Harassment documented by France-Soir in investigations into the harassment sphere (article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4) Although this complaint was dismissed, it illustrates how PubPeer can be perceived as a tool for personal attacks rather than rigorous scientific debate. Our sources at the CNRS do not hesitate to confirm that “Raoult is indeed a target of Barbour, like his colleague Chavalarias with whom they exchange. The hunt for conspiracy theorists is an obsession that blinds them. Moreover, the CNRS is plagued by ideologists, we can no longer really do objective research.”
- Selective censorship and bias : some researchers, including Prof. Chabrière, have published accusations on X that PubPeer censors certain comments, in particular those denouncing the conflicts of interest of contributors such as Elisabeth Bik, while allowing attacks against the IHU to flourish. These allegations fuel suspicions of a hidden agenda and correspond to the statements of internal sources at the CNRS.
-
Ideological approach : Bik has been criticized for calling some IHU studies “neocolonial” on PubPeer, an accusation deemed insulting by the IHU, which highlights its collaboration with countries in the Global South and the training of 1,000 foreign students. This reinforced the idea that PubPeer can be used for ideological rather than scientific criticism.
- Judicialization of scientific debates : the CNRS and the ENS have also denounced attempts to judicialize scientific debates via PubPeer, particularly in the Raoult-Bik case. They believe that criticizing scientific work within a legal framework, such as a harassment complaint, threatens academic freedom. Boris Barbour, although named in the IHU’s complaint for “complicity”, said in January 2022 that he had never been contacted by the prosecutor’s office, and the CNRS Ethics Committee defended their work as legitimate. However, these complaints highlight the tensions around the use of PubPeer.
- Our sources at the CNRS confirm, however, « a real anti-Raoult agenda that is led by few people. There seems to be a form of jealousy of the IHU, which has had the means to become an internationally respected centre. To our question « but why do they do this? our interlocutors at the CNRS and former CNRS explain: « Researchers, for fear of reprisals, keep a low profile. They are not very courageous, especially in times of financial scarcity. »
PubPeer’s biases and non-independence
PubPeer presents itself as an independent non-profit association, but its financial opacity fuels suspicions. According to unconfirmed allegations in the Raoult case, PubPeer raised $400,000 from an unidentified American foundation, which raises questions about its ties of interest. Contributors such as Elisabeth Bik, accused of bias, reinforce these doubts.
A post dated April 11, 2025 by ScienceGuardians on X reveals the scale of the coordinated attacks on PubPeer: “18.8% of the total 218,069 comments (or about 41,000) are attributable to two major ‘perpetrators’, operating via four pseudonymous accounts (Actinopolyspora biskrensis, Hoya camphorifolia, etc.) to target and defame researchers”. These figures suggest that the platform is being used for malicious purposes, far from the ideal of objective scientific debate.
Elisabeth Bik’s opaque role, a highly controversial “fraud hunter”
Elisabeth Bik, a Dutch microbiologist and prolific contributor to PubPeer, is often referred to as a “fraud hunter” for her work detecting image manipulation in scientific publications. However, his methods and motivations are widely criticized, notably by the IHU of Marseille and other researchers.
Here is Bik’s activity on Pubpeer – analysis conducted by @zebulon75018:
She seems to have an obsession with fraud : an analysis by France-Soir of Bik’s publications shows that she is “ready to do anything to see fraud where there is none”, which is confirmed by entrepreneur Matt Nachtrab. She takes a biased and systematic approach, targeting researchers like Raoult without solid evidence. Bik has pointed out problems in more than 60 papers (estimated 60) by Prof. Raoult and Prof. Chabrière or other IHU researchers (14), often on grounds deemed questionable, such as minor similarities in images.
Lack of transparency on its financing, Bik is the subject of suspicions of conflicts of interest. It is suspected of being influenced by industrial interests, including pharmaceutical companies such as Gilead, which markets Remdesivir, a competitor to the hydroxychloroquine promoted by Raoult and is said to have received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Although she says she funds her work through public donations on Patreon, the opacity of her funding fuels doubts. France-Soir revealed that Bik has been questioned several times about possible links with Gilead, but she has always denied it, without providing clear proof of her independence.
And irony of her own practices : Bik, who accuses other researchers of plagiarism, has herself been caught in the act of making mistakes on what she considers to be “copy and paste”. France-Soir has documented cases where Bik makes use of amateur tools that do not pass the rigorous tests with image recognition tools.
Finally, Bik’s criticisms, including his accusations of “neocolonialism” against the IHU, are perceived as ideological rather than scientific. These attacks, often relayed on PubPeer, contribute to a climate of mistrust and harassment towards researchers who explore unconventional hypotheses.
Instrumentalization of PubPeer: a tool of censorship and harassment
The case of Sabine Hazan perfectly illustrates these abuses. In July 2022, his paper » Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin’s Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity” was published in Frontiers in Microbiology. It was retracted in May 2023. ScienceGuardians, in an independent report published on April 10, 2025, denounces an unjustified retraction, motivated by external pressure rather than scientific flaws. This report was produced by three international experts, stressing that “Hazan’s paper was a theoretical hypothesis, not requiring immediate experimental validation, and that its retraction seems to be linked to financial and not scientific interests”. (1 – includes translation of the report)
Hazan herself denounced these retractions as a systemic problem, relaying ScienceGuardians’ post on X on April 11, 2025: “Retractions go a long way!! “. ScienceGuardians adds that “these attacks are aimed at controlling areas of high financial value, such as the stock market (via the retraction of research supporting drug development) or prestigious academic positions, involving billions of dollars.”
Jikkyleaks, in a post on April 12, 2025, goes further by calling PubPeer an operation that would fall under the “Racket-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” known in the United States as RICO. This operation would aim to “silence doctors and scientists” and allow government agents to commit “crimes”. It sheds light on the links between PubPeer and broader networks, involving figures like John Arnold (linked to the Enron collapse and pharmaceutical persuasion units) and contributors like Elisabeth Bik.
If you don’t understand that #PubpeerGate is a RICO operation to silence doctors and scientists and enable government agents to commit felonies, let Grok guide you through the crimes involved.
Sound on. @Kevin_McKernan @SabinehazanMD @SciGuardians @DOGE_SEC @elonmusk https://t.co/iJ6LAjpKrE pic.twitter.com/wFRE7aWT0D
— Jikkyleaks 🐭 (@Jikkyleaks) April 12, 2025
The laundering of information on PubPeer: the example of the Pradelle-Lega fraud
PubPeer is also accused Serve as a platform for laundering misinformation, as in the so-called “LyonBordeauxGate». A fraudulent study, conducted by Alexiane Pradelle and Jean-Christophe Lega (University of Lyon 1), claimed that hydroxychloroquine was responsible for 17,000 deaths during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study, published in 2024, was widely relayed by the mainstream media, But a subsequent peer-reviewed analysis showed that it was based on falsified data and serious methodological biases.
France-Soir revealed that figures like Jean-Christophe Lega and Mathieu Molimard helped spread this false information, especially via platforms like PubPeer, where anonymous comments amplified disinformation without contradiction. This affair has led to the discrediting of hydroxychloroquine in the media, illustrating the “real danger” of such fraud for science, as Vincent Pavant denounced in a debriefing. In the United States, experts have also debunked these claims, confirming that there is no evidence to support the 17,000 deaths attributed to hydroxychloroquine. The universities of Lyon and Bordeaux have been seized of this misinformation; however, no sanction has been pronounced to date against the perpetrators of the fraudulent study (Pradelle et al.) and its promoter Mathieu Molimard. The universities have remained silent, however this fraud has not given all its keys, because investigations are underway on both sides of the Atlantic.
Information pollution in science: a scourge amplified by PubPeer
Information pollution, or the spread of false information under the guise of scientific authority, is a growing problem, exacerbated by platforms like PubPeer. France-Soir has analysed this phenomenon, showing how “so-called fact-checkers” and traditional media contribute to a climate of disinformation, often by relying on platforms such as PubPeer or Wikipedia to legitimize their attacks.
A France-Soir/BonSens.org poll indicates that 70% of French people believe that the media spread “fear and lies”, reflecting a growing mistrust of traditional sources.
In this context, participatory and collaborative media such as France-Soir play a saving role, by dismantling frauds such as that of Pradelle-Lega and by offering a platform for open scientific debates. An analysis in France-Soir points out that these media are taking precedence over the traditional media, which are often complicit in information pollution, by re-establishing scientific truth.
PubPeer and the Hertel Case: An Unethical Approach
The Hertel case-law, resulting from a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 1998, protects freedom of scientific expression, even for unconventional hypotheses, as long as they are part of a debate of general interest. In the Hertel case, a Swiss researcher was sanctioned for publishing a study suggesting the risks associated with microwaves, but the Court ruled that this censorship violated his right to express scientific hypotheses.
PubPeer’s approach, by facilitating coordinated attacks on hypotheses such as Sabine Hazan’s on ivermectin, seems to be contrary to this jurisprudence. Hazan proposed a theoretical hypothesis on the role of the microbiome in immunity to Covid-19, a topic of general interest requiring an open scientific debate.
A lawyer specializing in forgery, use of forgery and scientific fraud commented: « the retraction of his article, under the pretext of a lack of experimental validation, constitutes a form of censorship that stifles scientific innovation, in contradiction with the principles of the Hertel jurisprudence. »
The role of the CNRS – between ideological biases, budgets and relations with industry
The CNRS, a major French research institution, is also at the heart of criticism for its ideological biases and its inability to protect “real science”. The report by David Chavalarias, director of the Institute of Complex Systems of Paris Île-de-France (affiliated with the CNRS), entitled “Trump’s version of anti-science arrives in France” is a concrete example of these ideological biases and “the potential misappropriation of public funds” as explained by the legal expert. This report, financed by public funds, accuses the French right of orchestrating an “anti-science” campaign, but it is criticized by the Collecif Citoyen for its methodological biases and its alarmist tone, which discredit its scientific objectivity.
The CNRS has also been the subject of much criticism for its role in the management of the Covid-19 crisis. Mistaken questions about the origin of the virus (including the initial rejection of the lab leak hypothesis, now considered plausible) and support for controversial health policies (such as opposition to hydroxychloroquine) have tarnished its reputation. These ideological biases, combined with “the use of questionable public funds” for projects such as Chavalarias’ or “Barbour’s instrumentalization of advertising”, show a CNRS that privileges political agendas over scientific rigor. INSERM, another French institution, is also criticized for similar positions, particularly on the management of Covid-19 treatments, where alternative hypotheses have been systematically marginalized.
In terms of budget, the CNRS has significant resources, with an annual budget of around €3.8 billion in 2023, a significant part of which comes from public funding. However, a growing portion of this budget is tied to partnerships with industry. The CNRS manages its relations with companies via the Purchasing and Innovation Service (DDAI), in collaboration with the Department of Accounts and Financial Information (DCIF), which ensures the compliance of accounting operations. These partnerships, while fostering innovation, raise questions about the independence of the CNRS, especially in sensitive areas such as medical research, where industrial interests can influence scientific priorities.
The Insidious Links Between Scientific Publications and Industry: Elsevier and the Couperin Agreements
Science is also influenced by companies that control scientific publications, such as Elsevier, Springer Nature or Wiley. Professor Didier Raoult, in an interview with France-Soir, denounced the financialization of science, explaining that these publishers form a “real and very profitable financial company”. He pointed out that scientific journals, once tools for the dissemination of knowledge, have become profit machines, with expensive subscriptions and publication fees (APC, or article processing fees) that can reach several thousand euros per article.
An example of this dependence is the Couperin agreement, signed between Elsevier and the ABES (Bibliographic Agency for Higher Education). This agreement, intended to facilitate open access for French researchers, covers the costs of publication for affiliated authors, but it illustrates a relationship of financial dependence. Researchers must follow a strict process to publish under this agreement: after acceptance of their article, they receive an email inviting them to verify their affiliation and publication options, which include the option to publish in open access under the agreement. While this agreement seems beneficial, it strengthens Elsevier’s power over scientific dissemination, limiting the independence of researchers and favouring high-impact journals, often aligned with industrial interests.
Xavier Azalbert, director of France-Soir, denounced this agreement on X, stressing that it is a “real enterprise of control of science”, where publishers like Elsevier impose their rules on researchers, often to the detriment of academic freedom. In a post on September 23, 2024, he criticized the way in which these agreements favor the financial interests of publishers over the research itself. Another post on October 3, 2024 reinforced this criticism, pointing to the role of research institutions, including the CNRS, in this dynamic of dependence. This is a blatant illustration of excessive spending, because the cost of publication per article is not 3,000 euros as declared, but rather 7,000 to 8,000 euros – the printing rights for some 11,000 articles per year are not used in full! Real questions therefore arise about the effectiveness of the use of public funds in an agreement that gives more guarantees to the publisher!
Jay Bhattacharya at the head of the NIH or a hope for freer science
The appointment of Jay Bhattacharya as the 18th director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 25, 2025, marks a potential turning point for biomedical research. Bhattacharya, a health economist at Stanford University, took office on April 1, 2025, after being appointed by President Donald Trump on November 26, 2024. The appointment was widely praised for its potential to restore trust in science and promote freedom of scientific expression.
Bhattacharya became known for his criticism of Covid-19 policies, including lockdowns and vaccine management, which he often deemed excessive or scientifically ill-founded. During his Senate confirmation hearing, he outlined his priorities for the NIH: “restoring public trust in science, encouraging scientific dissent, and refocusing chronic disease research to improve the health of Americans, in alignment with Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ agenda.” He also insisted on the need for a “culture of respect” for freedom of scientific expression. He said “freedom of expression has never been more important and in danger. It is the duty of every scientist to defend the truth, even in the face of adversity .”
In an exclusive interview with France-Soir – the only French media outlet to have interviewed him – Bhattacharya detailed his vision. He stressed in his hearing before the Senate:
« the importance of transparency and reproducibility in research, advocating for structural reforms at the NIH to ensure that scientists can explore unconventional hypotheses without fear of censorship. He also criticized the external pressures that influence science, a problem he intends to combat by strengthening the independence of researchers. »
Bhattacharya’s appointment offers a striking contrast with the excesses of the CNRS and PubPeer. While the CNRS seems mired in ideological biases and ambiguous relations with industry, Bhattacharya could embody a return to a more open science and less influenced by political or financial agendas. Her position could also offer support to researchers like Sabine Hazan, targeted for their unconventional hypotheses, by protecting freedom of scientific expression, in accordance with principles such as those of the Hertel jurisprudence. Many people also wonder about the support for researchers at the IHU Méditerranée.
Towards a reform of scientific integrity?
PubPeer, initially designed to promote scientific integrity, has become a controversial tool, accused of bias, lack of independence, and instrumentalization to discredit researchers like Sabine Hazan. The coordinated attacks revealed by ScienceGuardians, the opaque links to financial networks (such as John Arnold’s), and the potentially illegal use of the platform (according to the RICO Act) underscore the need for reform. Elisabeth Bik’s biases, the laundering of false information (as in the Pradelle-Lega case), and the information pollution amplified by PubPeer aggravate these problems. Moreover, his approach is contrary to the Hertel case, which protects the right of scientists to propose hypotheses without fear of censorship.
The CNRS, for its part, is criticized for its ideological biases, its inability to protect “real science”, and its ambiguous relations with industry, which compromise its independence. The financialization of science, exemplified by the practices of Elsevier and the Couperin agreement, aggravates these problems, transforming research into a lucrative enterprise to the detriment of innovation. In contrast, Jay Bhattacharya’s appointment to the NIH, covered exclusively by France-Soir, offers a glimmer of hope for a more transparent and less politicized science.
For platforms like PubPeer to regain their legitimacy, they must guarantee rigorous moderation, financial transparency, and respect for the ethical and legal principles that protect scientific freedom.
Dr. Sabine Hazan’s paper, titled “Microbiome-based hypothesis on the mechanism of ivermectin in COVID-19: ivermectin feeds bifidobacteria to boost immunity,” published in Frontiers in Microbiology in July 2022, proposed a novel hypothesis regarding the role of ivermectin in influencing the gut microbiome to potentially improve immunity against COVID-19.
The paper, clearly positioned as a hypothesis within the existing body of scientific literature, raised intriguing possibilities that warranted further investigation, rather than premature retraction.
This report, by three world-renowned experts recruited by ScienceGuardians, aims to provide an independent and scientifically rigorous analysis of the retraction of Dr. Hazan’s paper and to explore the broader implications of the retraction process in academic publishing.
- Theoretical nature of the article : Dr. Hazan’s article presented a hypothesis, not a definitive conclusion. The idea that ivermectin may influence the abundance of Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiome, leading to potential immune modulation, is theoretically sound based on existing data on interactions with the microbiome. However, like many theoretical propositions in science, this paper did not claim to offer definitive proof; He was looking to open up a new avenue of research. The language of the paper was clear and explicit in presenting the hypothesis, signaling the need for further empirical research . This is a common and valid aspect of scientific discourse: hypotheses are often proposed on the basis of existing data to guide future experimental research. The retraction of such an article, which is by nature speculative, is not justified.
- Lack of experimental validation: The article did not present experimental results.
Rather, it relied on existing literature to support the hypothesis that ivermectin, a byproduct of the fermentation of Streptomyces avermitilis, could feed Bifidobacterium and, by extension, modulate the immune response to COVID-19. Although this hypothesis is plausible, it is not uncommon in scientific research for such claims to remain theoretical until they are experimentally verified.
Experimental validation is an essential component of the scientific process. However, the absence of experimental data does not automatically make a hypothesis invalid. The retraction of Dr. Hazan’s paper due to lack of experimental evidence is unwarranted, as the nature of the paper was theoretical from the start.
- Ethical concerns in the withdrawal process :
The retraction of Dr. Hazan’s paper raises serious ethical concerns about the integrity of the publication process . Based on the available evidence, the decision to retract the paper appears to have been influenced by external pressures, potentially from individuals with vested interests in discrediting the hypothesis rather than by an objective examination of its scientific merits.
Investors and non-scientists have no place in decisions regarding the retraction of scientific hypotheses. Such actions are highly problematic, as they suggest that financial interests could influence the publication process, ultimately undermining scientific integrity. This retraction is a typical example of how decisions motivated by commercial reasons can distort the scientific process, stifling innovation and research. The role of publishers in these issues also deserves to be questioned. If the decision to retract was made without a thorough review by experts in the field or on the basis of external influences, it calls into question the integrity of the editorial process itself.
- The impact of retractions on scientific discourse:
Retractions, especially those motivated by external pressure, send a worrying message to the scientific community. They suggest that scientific research is not valued when it challenges established narratives or explores untested ideas. The retraction of Dr. Hazan’s paper hinders scientific progress by discouraging the open exchange of theoretical ideas that could lead to future discoveries. Dr. Hazan’s hypothesis is valuable precisely because it introduces a new perspective on the role of ivermectin in immune modulation. Scientific progress requires innovative thinking , thinking that, while not always supported by solid experimental evidence at the outset, is nevertheless worth exploring.
- Conclusion:
In conclusion, the unwarranted retraction of Dr. Sabine Hazan’s paper is a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities of the academic publishing system . The paper, as a theoretical hypothesis, was always intended as a starting point for further experimental research. The lack of direct experimental evidence should not have led to the retraction of the article, especially given the ethical issues surrounding the retraction process. We, the team of experts assembled by ScienceGuardians, believe that this retraction represents an unwarranted hindrance to scientific exploration and a dangerous precedent for the future of academic publishing. Such actions discourage scientists from presenting innovative hypotheses and threaten the very foundations of scientific research. Dr. Hazan’s hypothesis deserves to be explored in depth and validated by experimental research . We support his efforts and the value of his theoretical work, and call for a thorough examination of the broader issues surrounding this retraction.
ScienceGuardians note on the process:
This independent analysis was conducted by three world-renowned experts recruited by ScienceGuardians. The team is made up of leading researchers from leading universities specializing in microbiology, immunology and related fields. These experts have been carefully selected to ensure a thorough, impartial and highly credible review of the retraction process. It is important to note that these experts have never collaborated or worked with Dr. Sabine Hazan or any of her co-authors on any of her papers. They had no connection with Dr. Hazan or her associates, thus ensuring the independence and objectivity of the analysis. This was carried out under a confidentiality agreement (NDA), ensuring that only the results of the investigation would be made public. This process was intended to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the review, with the sole purpose of producing an independent and unbiased report for the benefit of the scientific community.
(2) Appendix 2: Expose the Scale of Attacks on PubPeer by Two Key Perpetrators of the PubPeer Network
The first pie chart represents the total number of topics on PubPeer as of April 1, 2025, which is 218,069 topics. These comments range from relevant scientific discussions to malicious and coordinated attacks against researchers. The highlighted section (18.8%) represents the attacks carried out by two major perpetrators within the PubPeer crowd, which account for a staggering 18.8% of the total comments in the platform’s history, showing the extent of their malicious activity. The second pie chart further breaks down the 18.8%, showing the involvement of four accounts operated by these two authors, targeting and defaming members of the scientific community. These figures illustrate the extent of coordinated and malicious activities within the academic discourse, which undermine the integrity and security of researchers.
Note: In order to restrict access as part of our ongoing investigation, and although it is too late, PubPeer has limited access to its website from April 2025, now showing only 10,000 records. However, you can still check the total number of comments on the platform up to this date, as shown in the image, using the following link.
Please note: We have censored the identities of the individuals behind these attacks to prevent their malicious activity from spreading. At ScienceGuardians, we believe that exposing and naming these individuals only fuels their thirst for attention, potentially amplifying their nefarious actions. That’s why we focus on the fundamental issues to effectively combat fraud by empowering the academic and research community and preventing fraud before it happens. We achieve this through our comprehensive training and practical, hands-on guidelines, which are ScienceGuardians ™’ core missions.
Important note : Our commitment to legal cooperation We recognize that many of these orchestrated attacks are funded by individuals and organizations whose identities we know. These attacks aim to control various high-value-added sectors, including the stock market, in particular by forcing the retraction of articles used as a basis for drug development or by defaming their main researchers. These attacks also target academic positions, including leadership and leadership positions at the national level, such as the presidents of universities and research institutes. They also involve grants and research funds, which represent billions of dollars at stake. In this context, we are fully prepared to cooperate with the judicial authorities to combat these fraudulent activities. This includes collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (@FBI, @FBIDirectorKash, @FBIDDBongino), the Securities and Exchange Commission ( @secgov), the Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept, @AGPamBondi), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (@FinCENnews). We are committed to supporting these agencies in their efforts to investigate and prosecute fraudulent activities, ensuring the accountability and protection of the scientific and financial communities.
We call academic publishers and their research integrity teams (including but not limited to @ElsevierConnect, @WileyGlobal, @SpringerNature, (@WeAreTandF, @APSphysics, @PLOS), @APSphysics, @AIP_Publishing, @AIP_Publishing, @CellCellPress, (@ScienceMagazine, @aaas, @Nature, @RoySocChem, @ACSPublications, (@Sage_Publishing, @FrontiersIn) to avoid engaging in or supporting malicious activities rooted in platforms without any accountability – platforms that enable orchestrated attacks and defamation against members of the academic community. Specifically, we highlight PubPeer, which has become increasingly controlled by a small group of malicious individuals and organizations whose motives go far beyond science and research integrity. These individuals use PubPeer to mask their attacks by indiscriminately targeting researchers, many of whom are collateral victims of this vast malicious network. We urge publishers to refrain from referencing or nurturing these groups, and instead focus on protecting the integrity of the academic community.
The piece of the puzzle we unveil in this thread is just one of many discoveries from ScienceGuardians’ legal and investigative team. We will continue to monitor the situation and the activities of all stakeholders to ensure the improvement and prosperity of the university community.
We invite all members of the scientific, research, and academic communities to join ScienceGuardians in our mission to defend research integrity. By registering on https://scienceguardians.com , you are helping to promote transparency, accountability, and ethical standards in scientific publishing and discourse.
