Irene García-Ruiz
@irenegarciaruiz.com
Behavioural ecologist, Ph.D. • Researcher at the University of Neuchâtel.
Cooperation | Sociality | Sexual selection | Theoretical and empirical research
https://irenegarciaruiz.com/
Cooperation | Sociality | Sexual selection | Theoretical and empirical research
https://irenegarciaruiz.com/
It's not just the figure, the text is not better. Clearly the "reviewers" are also part of these papermills. The editor is obviously at fault here, but it's also worth pointing out how overflow the system is. We need a better system.
December 8, 2025 at 7:57 AM
It's not just the figure, the text is not better. Clearly the "reviewers" are also part of these papermills. The editor is obviously at fault here, but it's also worth pointing out how overflow the system is. We need a better system.
Reposted by Irene García-Ruiz
Springer-Nature statement
“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”
How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?
“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”
How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?
Riding the Autism Bicycle to Retraction Town
Does anyone *really* know their Factor Fexcectorn?
nobreakthroughs.substack.com
November 28, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Springer-Nature statement
“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”
How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?
“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”
How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?
I actually know personally of a case that pushed the person to complete paranoia. Really scary.
November 21, 2025 at 8:05 AM
I actually know personally of a case that pushed the person to complete paranoia. Really scary.
Reposted by Irene García-Ruiz
More on this phenomenon. (gift link)
They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling.
www.nytimes.com
November 21, 2025 at 6:05 AM
More on this phenomenon. (gift link)
And none applied? Shocked! People don't want to work anymore 🤦
November 20, 2025 at 1:42 PM
And none applied? Shocked! People don't want to work anymore 🤦
