We sure do! Delisted! Let's see and wait when they will finally start to retract. They have been investigating (especially Barcelo his role) but so far no retractions.

One might wonder how they came to the 'guardians of science' rhetoric in their article. Due to their use of ChatGPT or perhaps they 'follow' that idiotic twitter account and got some ideas there or... This piece of crap should get retracted by @springernature.com asap.

He is a big fan of the science guardians: x.com/Damia_Barcelo
Also check this out: theanalyticalscientist.com/issues/2025/... ; he claims he doesn't really know when it's a COI

You could say that for sure! Someone with 13 retractions and most for obvious fraud, isn't really COPE material (unless of course this is exactly what COPE actually stands for....). Let's be honest too: COPE hasn't really been doing a good job, I guess we now know why...

Yes, let's see how well he will do! He for sure deserves a spot on the leaderboard!

22! Still several more to make the retraction watch leaderboard!

Last author is EIC of the journal and has 11(!!) retractions. This is just too hilarious. This guy should not be in such position @springernature.com

Lol yes, you got me there. This is highly suspicious!

Oh!! Good catch!

Yes, it's a very weird paper. I wonder if the editor/reviewers are in on it.

Check here: pubpeer.com/publications...

I know, they changed the name of the editor. But no correction issued, strange no? Might be Covaci didn't edit it, however he is involved in serious unethical stuff. He turns journals in paper mill places + edits for friends/coauthors