Advertisement ยท 728 ร— 90

Posts by Sam

Post image

If I claimed this liquid-to-solid phase transition assay on a pure protein in vitro predicts the same transition to happen in cells, what counterarguments would you raise?

Would the same counterarguments apply to a liquid-to-liquid phase transition assay on the same pure protein in vitro?

2 months ago 17 4 1 1

I find this plugin very useful to have installed. Several times it has stopped me from citing a paper that I did not realize was retracted. Every scientist should use it!

5 months ago 0 0 0 0
On the left - western blot of B16F10 cells wt and KO for CDK8. Our in house produced antibodies give a lot of unspecific bands. On the right same probes with antibodies preincubated with fixed CDK8 KO cells - there is a specific band and faint unspecific bands, which can be probably eliminated with increase of amount of KO cells.

On the left - western blot of B16F10 cells wt and KO for CDK8. Our in house produced antibodies give a lot of unspecific bands. On the right same probes with antibodies preincubated with fixed CDK8 KO cells - there is a specific band and faint unspecific bands, which can be probably eliminated with increase of amount of KO cells.

Neat trick if you polycolonal ab's suck. Incubate them with fixed cells with a KO of your protein of interest, then spin. Protocol here: www.med.upenn.edu/markslab/ass...
I was amazed how well it worked on first try (I'm sure that I can completely eliminate unspecific bands)
#WesternBlot #cellsky

6 months ago 192 57 7 6

Peer review has a weakness in that it is not in one's interest to upset colleagues by pointing out their mistakes, as upset peers may write negative reviews in the future. But setting the record straight is an essential part of science, and an ever-self-congratulating field is prone to get stuck.

8 months ago 16 1 3 0
Preview
A do-or-die moment for the scientific enterprise Reflecting on our paper โ€œThe entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidlyโ€

Today, our article "The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly" is finally published in PNAS. I hope that it proves to be a wake-up-call for the whole scientific community.

reeserichardson.blog/2025/08/04/a...

8 months ago 339 205 9 44
Post image

๐Ÿ“ข Weโ€™re a coalition of former staff members who saw too much, spoke up against a tyrant administrator and were pushed out.

Follow us and stay tuned to learn how this department has deteriorated over the last few years and how itโ€™s recently getting worse & worse.

10 months ago 1 1 0 0

Except Frontiers & MDPI journals ๐Ÿคฃ

1 year ago 1 0 0 0

๐Ÿ‘

1 year ago 0 0 0 0
Advertisement

Thank you. In any case, Finnish research will benefit and everyone involved is to be applauded for taking this important step. Hopefully other countries will follow.

1 year ago 1 0 0 0
Preview
The SNSF is no longer funding Open Access articles in special issues Large increase, inconsistent processes: from February 2024, the SNSF will no longer fund Open Access articles in special issues.

Big news in the publishing landscape of ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ญ
The Swiss National Science Foundation will no longer support publications in special issues. This is to fight the unsustainable models pushed by publishing houses like MDPI or Frontiers. There is another way. Go Diamond! ๐Ÿ’Ž๐Ÿ’Ž๐Ÿ’Ž๐Ÿ’Ž๐Ÿ’Ž๐Ÿ’Ž๐Ÿ’Ž
www.snf.ch/en/g2ICvujLD...

2 years ago 19 14 0 3
Preview
Changes to the classification

Big news from Finnish publication forum. Almost all MDPI and Frontiers journals will be downgraded to level 0 and thus are not considered as properly peer reviewed trustworthy scientific journals.
julkaisufoorumi.fi/en/news/chan...

1 year ago 404 276 18 45

Why keep 16 MPDI and 22 Frontiers journals at level 1? If the problem is the publisher rather than journal-by-journal then that decision doesn't make sense. Did any of the members of the committee making the decision publish in those remaining journals by any chance...

1 year ago 3 0 1 0

We don't need to use MDPI, Frontiers or other paper mills for that. There are lots of journals that publish negative results AND have a real peer review process, such as PloS ONE, Scientific Reports, Life Science Alliance, iScience etc.

1 year ago 1 0 0 0

It's now possible to win $1000 for making a PubPeer comment!๐Ÿค‘

1 year ago 2 0 0 0

Worrying ๐Ÿ‘‡

1 year ago 0 0 0 0

Impossible๐Ÿ˜‚ But why the hell submitting there??? Publishing in MDPI may be the best way to kill a PhD students career before it even started:

predatoryreports.org/news/f/list-...

t.co/1NaeJXfSwx

1 year ago 6 2 2 0

It's because every MDPI journal has to reject one manuscript, one time, so they can say they have a legitimate peer review process. Unfortunately you drew the short straw this time, but on the plus side the chances of it happening to you again are practically zero so just try another MDPI journal! ๐Ÿ˜‰

1 year ago 1 0 0 0
Advertisement

Many years ago I was asked to join the editorial board of the journal Electrochem that was about to start.
It sounded very interesting, since OA was just coming in and we were trying to move away from elsevier and other subscription journals.
1/

1 year ago 2 1 1 0

Thank you for sharing. I have read many similar stories from people on Twitter/X in the past, so your experience is not unique

1 year ago 0 0 0 0
Preview
The paper mills helping China commit scientific fraud In one Chinese research paper into prostate cancer, 50 per cent of the patients named were women โ€“ who do not have prostate glands.

Academic fraud is rife with #china at the forefront. As I write in the Spectator, journals are waking up to reality of fake science thanks to dogged detective work of @elisabethbik.bsky.social
worthy winner of @einsteinberlin.bsky.social award #fraud #science

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-...

1 year ago 71 19 3 1

More evidence (as if it was needed) that Frontiers and MDPI do not peer review properly, have predatory characteristics and should be avoided like the plague

1 year ago 10 3 0 1
Preview
An Atypical Mechanism of SUMOylation of Neurofibromin SecPH Domain Provides New Insights into SUMOylation Site Selection Neurofibromin (Nf1) is a giant multidomain protein encoded by the tumour-suppressor gene NF1. NF1 is mutated in a common genetic disease, neurofibromaโ€ฆ

Beware using FLAG tags in SUMOylation studies, as the lysines in the DYKDDDDK sequence can be SUMOylated according to this report... www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

1 year ago 4 3 0 0
Preview
Optimizing murine sample sizes for RNA-seq studies revealed from large-scale comparative analysis Determining the appropriate sample size (N) for comparative biological experiments is critical for obtaining reliable results. In order to determine the N, the usual approach is to perform a power cal...

This study finds that at least N=8-12 RNA-seq experiments are required to avoid a >50% false positive rate www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

1 year ago 5 0 0 0
Preview
Prevalence of errors in lab-made plasmids across the globe Plasmids are indispensable in life sciences research and therapeutics development. Currently, most labs custom-build their plasmids. As yet, no systematic data on the quality of lab-made plasmids exis...

Worth bearing in mind! www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

1 year ago 0 0 0 0

Hello Bluesky, looking forward to interesting and stimulating science here!

1 year ago 5 1 0 0
Advertisement