French nanotechnologists Sabine Szunerits and Rabah Boukherroub put EU Commission's money to good use. The EU cannot afford a papermill gap to Iran and China!
This story brings us to Lille, a medieval city in northern France. Famed for its Flemish history and architecture, but also for its local beer and genièvre liquor. Was booze responsible for what went on in the last decade at the NanoBioInterfaces Team of the University of Lille? Is anything they publish real? Do they even know how science is supposed to be done?
The team is run by two nanotechnologists: Sabine Szunerits, Austrian-born professor of chemistry, and her fellow nanotechnology professor at the University of Lille, Rabah Boukherroub. As Szunerits told me, he is just a “coworker in next office“ to her, but the barely acquainted couple published over 200 papers together, and judging from the PubPeer evidence for over 50 threads, they seem to run an actual papermill together. In any case, Boukherroub did not protest against such description. And Szunerits asked me for IT help to avoid getting caught again.
You may have met this Lille Papermille team in earlier Friday Shorts. As it happens, Boukherroub looks uncannily like Dr Evil from the Austin Powers comedy films. And come to think of it, Szunerits does distantly resemble Dr Evil’s henchwoman Frau Farbissina. Yes yes, I know, a very inappropriate comparison. Dr Evil had space rockets and sharks with lasers, while these two have a papermill. Still, one can hold the world to ransom in many ways. Bwahahaha.
In July 2023, Dr Szunerits was appointed Knight of the French National Order of the Legion of Honour, because she discovered cures for many infections and other diseases, all with nanotechnology. Her NanoBioInterfaces team in Lille is financed by CNRS and the EU Horizon 2020, as part of PANG project (“pathogens and graphene”). Graphene is this Nobel-Prized material which 10 years ago the EU Commission bet 1 Billion Euros on to solve all problems of the humanities (spoiler: the EU Commission lost the bet). In any case, big plans existed at the Graphene Flagship to crash the COVID-19 pandemic with graphene:
How can EU Flagships help with coronavirus pandemic? Human Brain Project offers IT power and cigarettes, while Graphene Flagship established a COVID-19 Task Force. With Francesco “Stripy” Stellacci as virology expert!
And who is more qualified to solve COVID-19 than Lille researchers? Haven’t Institut Pasteur Lille geniuses previously find a cure for the pandemic? Remember the news, Emmanuel Macron’s government excited that France was saving the world from the pandemic not once but twice, having discovered not just one, but two game-changing yet cheap drugs against the coronavirus? Not just Didier Raoult‘s chloroquine, but also Benoît Deprez‘s clofoctol? Remember how world’s richest man Bernard Arnault sent €5 million and his son over to Lille to make sure that suppository drug is goes exactly the way it was supposed to go?
Well, in all that excitement you couldn’t expect the Lille nanofabricators Szunerits and Boukherroub to stand idly by, with hands in their pockets. Their PANG project was funded until 2019 with €580k of EU money to fight infections with graphene. When the pandemic hit, Szunerits and Boukherroub were ready. Their COVID-19 test device was eventually celebrated in a Reuters article from February 2023:
“The prototype test, called CorDial-1, has not been approved for use, but initial trials on 300 samples showed a 90% accuracy rate compared to a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, the most reliable commonly-used method of detecting COVID-19. […]
The prototype test can deliver results within 10 minutes, and can be used outside the laboratory, according to the team developing it, while PCR testing typically takes hours and needs lab conditions.
There are other quick and portable COVID-19 tests available, but scientists have raised doubts about their reliability.
The CorDial-1 test uses antibody fragments called nanobodies. […] The next phase of the project is to run a three-month trial on more than 1,000 people.”
From left: Rabah Boukherroub, Sabine Szunerits, David Devos, presenting ftheir “project called CorDial-1 for rapid COVID tests via smartphones, at the CNRS in Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France, February 11, 2021.” Photo credit: REUTERS/Pascal Rossignol
It seems, the clinical trial never happened. Maybe this is why you never heard of their groundbreaking revolutionary inventions, like that CorDial-1 thingy? Because they are all, well, made-up? Look, proof of principle for CorDial-1 performance:
Hiba Saada , Quentin Pagneux , James Wei , Ludovic Live , Alain Roussel, Alexis Dogliani , Lycia Die Morini , Ilka Engelmann , Enagnon Kazali Alidjinou , Anne Sophie Rolland , Emmanuel Faure , Julien Poissy , Julien Labreuche , Gil Lee , Peng Li , Gerard Curran , Anass Jawhari , Jhonny A. Yunda , Sorin Melinte, Axel Legay , Jean-Luc Gala David Devos, Rabah Boukherroub, Sabine Szunerits Sensing of COVID-19 spike protein in nasopharyngeal samples using a portable surface plasmon resonance diagnostic systemSensors & Diagnostics (2022) doi: 10.1039/d2sd00087c
“In Figure 4, the noise of the SPR curves looks very similar.”“Figure 1c. Identical noise patterns are noticeable in the SPR curves at Ct 18, 25, and 29.”
Fake spectra are surely something which may impact clinical performance. I believe. Oh and look, Szunerits and Boukerroub very prophetically developed a nanoparticle cure for coronaviruses, already in 2019:
“Raman spectra of CQDs 2, 3, and 4 of Figure 2G exhibit many similarities in their noise, suggesting that it is actually the same curve”“The N1s high-resolution XPS spectrum of CQDs-6 of this article (Figure 5D) is identical to the XPS spectrum in Figure 2B of 10.1021/acsami.6b01681.”“all the curves in each graph are, in fact, identical, with the sole distinction being the position of the yellow curve”
“In Figure 2B of this article which related to TEM images of different carbon dots, the same TEM image appears twice (blue arrow) for CQDs-1 and CQDs-3”“The size distribution of CQDs1 (Figure 2) and CQDs6 (Figure5) looks exactly the same.”“The graph presented in Figure 7a of this article exhibits some anomalies”
Fake spectra, fake electron microscopy pictures, fake bar diagrams even. Szunerits’ commented on PubPeer in September 2023:
“Then I ask for an erratrrum at ACS? No idea how this works. In fact, I would love to have such a screen before the paper is even accepted. Is this possible somehow? This will safe a lot of time as image hunting after 4 years is hard..”
In 2015, another virus succumbed to this team’s creative data re-use. What used to be in 2013 a blood sugar tester for diabetics, became two years later a “therapeutic agent” against hepatitis:
“The high resolution B 1s XPS spectrum in Figure 2C of this article is exactly the same as in Figure 1B of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2013.06.015. While in this article the XPS spectrum is obtained from lipid nanocapsules functionalized with boronic acid (BA-LNCs), the one in 10.1016/j.bios.2013.06.015 is obtained from 4-aminophenylboronic acid (APBA) modified graphene (rGO/APBA).”
Alexandre Barras is now Ingenieur de Recherche at the NanoBioInterfaces Team of Boukherroub and Szunerits. He made his career engineering research results, together with his superiors. This however, dear Alexandre, is just lazy, lazy, lazy:
“Figure 6 and 8 of this article are exactly the same but the labeling of the flasks is different”
Szunerits and Boukherroub have a heart for suffering diabetics. Surely these patients can profit from some graphene nanofraud? No? Well, it did the authors lots of good, and all you need is to make a picture brighter, and your graphene nanothingy changes chemical composition and starts detecting glucose instead of dopamine:
Fig 1B: “SEM image of gold/rGO electrodes“. In Wang et al 2013 Fig 4A: “SEM image of graphene modified silicon.”
Here Szunerits and Boukherroub copy-pasted some transdermal drug delivery “data” from a paper in review (Theodorescu et al 2016) into a paper they just submitted to same journal:
“Figure 7B of this article looks identical to Figure 5C in 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.029 .”“In Fig5A, the vertical line of a SEM bar is sticking out at the top, which is rather surprising (green arrow). Further, the colour of some histogram bars does not fit with their outlines (red arrows). As in Figure 4, the SEM bars looks identical which is rather surprising for a release experiment done with 5 repeates for each group.”
“In the present article, insulin is loaded into “rGO entrapped poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) hydrogels”. In 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.029: “rGO nanosheets impregnated with ondansetron (ODS) as a model drug and deposited onto a flexible polyimide-based interface, Kapton” are used.“10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.029 (Figure 6)
Data recycling between papers and in different experimental setups is standard practice for Szunerits and Boukherroub. That’s why they have over FIFTY papers flagged on PubPeer, so much that I can only show you a choice selection.
Below, fresh from last year, forgers saw no reason to get their blood pressure up worrying that people mutated into rats! Reused from Chambre et al 2020 and Chengnan et al 2019 (the latter already had duplicated spectra between two different graphene matrices):
In Fig 5D “these images are described as histological sections of rat skin before and after contact with Pentravan®-ramipril formulation (12 h) as well as after electrothermal activation for 10 min at 1.0 V. In 10.1021/acsami.0c17633 and 10.1039/C9NR02707F, they are described as a human ex vivo skin model after treatment with two different systems.”
“In Figure 7B and C of this article several images of bacteria in culture coming from different sources (“original” or from human serum) are actually the same after either a rotation, an enlargement or contrast/brightness changes.”
“In Figure 7A, the peaks do not represent the data. At the intersection of peak 1 and peak 2 at about 400.7 eV the overall intensity is expected to be the sum of the red bar and the blue bar (= red/blue circle). The intensity of the data is much smaller. […] it is also strange that the intensity of the envelope drops below the intensity of peak 2 (green box).”
Here a collaboration with Sweden, published in a journal founded by a fraudster in Sweden, Anthony PF Turner:
The last author Sara Lindén, professor at the University of Gothenburg, pointed finger at Szunerits as responsible:
“The corrigendum/errata has been submitted to the journal, so I expect it will soon be visible on the journal webb page. The corresponding author from the laboratory where these figures were made thinks it is against the journal rules to post the photos here. It is very embarrassing that the wrong photos were submitted, but it does not affect the results/conclusions of the study…”
Interesting rules Szunerits invents. Still, a Correction appeared on 28 November 2023:
“The authors regret that the wrong SEM images and scale bars have been presented in Fig. 1D and 3B. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The scientific content remains unchanged.”
What can you expect from this garbage journal. Turner’s protege, the scamference fraudster Ashutosh Tiwari, published a lot there.
My earlier article about the fake Linköping University professor Ashutosh Tiwari and his scam of predatory conferences and journals, made quite a splash. Swedish Linköping University (LiU) now opened an investigation into research misconduct and other “improprieties” of their past employee Tiwari. The investigation is likely to include his past patron, bioelectronics professor Anthony “Tony”…
“Fitting curves do not correspond to actual analytical functions (see the red highlighted arrow pointing to fitted peak function with constant horizontal intensity, which is impossible for a Gaussian-Lorentian function used for fitting XPS) In yellow, data drawn on top of the frame. In pink, sudden change in color of the background function.”
Where do Szunerits and Boukerroub get such interesting material to publish? For clues, it is worth checking Boukherroub’s own PubPeer record , to see who else he published bad science with. First: Mika Sillanpää, the Finnish papermiller based in Denmark! With Sillanpää, Boukherroub joined Iranian papermill fabrications with fake data and nonsense references (e.g. Naciri et al 2022). And also this does very much look like a case where all authors paid for authorships:
“The left part of the red and black curves are exactly similar, down to the noise (purple box). […] The only difference between the red and black curves are underlined in the green and blue boxes. In the green box, one can see the line becomes thicker in the red curve”“The red and black curves are exactly similar. […] The noise at the left of the curves is repeated between both curves (orange box”
“Figure 6d is actually figure 6c with a few more curves.”Fig S8 “in both cases, the before and after curves are extremely similar.“
Second, another collaborator of Boukherroub’s (enjoy for example Kumar et al 2019), also with a huge PubPeer record: Suman L. Jain, the nano-forger from India, with almost 40 fake papers on PubPeer! She happens to be an Associate Editor at a Royal Society of Chemistry journal which relies on editorial fraudsters (read Friday Shorts). And here is a nice paper of hers with Boukherroub and Szunerits:
“Fig. 8. Wide angle XRD of: a) Fresh rGO/NiO; b) Recovered rGO/NiO. Something weird happened to the figure, because it has blank areas in random parts. In addition to that, the data appears completely similar, including noise, for the two samples (fresh and recovered).”
“Fig. S3: 15N NMR spectra a) Hydrazine solution before reaction, b) reaction mixture after 6 h of (a), and c) after completion of the reaction (12 h) of (a) […] absolutely the same noise in their 15N NMR baseline, after 6 and 12 hours of reaction, when the peaks themselves have actually changed” In fact, also b) looks very similar to a) and c) .
The first author and Szunerits’ PhD student Pawan Kumar later went on to learn even more science fraud as postdoc at RCPTM in Olomouc, Czechia, in the lab Radek Zboril‘s buddy Manoj B. Gawande (PubPeer record here, and read below). Small world one could say, but science cheaters always stick together.
“I could not comprehend the situation where a university picks up on individuals with an extraordinary and sterling performance and basically destroy one of the top European institutions. ” – Raj Varma
Now, dear reader, you must be already tired of all this fake science. But there is much more I want you to show, and before we continue – an intermission with some light entertainment. Send in the clowns!
I wrote to Szunerits on 1 October 2023, soon after some anonymous PubPeer user(s) started to post comments about her papers. She replied immediately, and took full responsibility as lead author:
“Indeed I take these concerns very serious and look at each data carefully. I already send 3 erratum demands as wrong images have indeed been used as some data got mixed up. Some other flagged papers are not correct and I will answer them step by step.
In fact I would love we have the possibility before submitting a paper as supervisors to be able to use your skills an see where probably wrong images were used etc. Do you think there is any change as this would be more helpful then making erratums.”
I replied wondering if Szunerits would merely replace the figures if some confidential IT service allowed her to detect these fabrications pre-submission, as opposed to say, actually investigating the fraud in her lab (yes, back then I naively assumed this Knight of the French National Order of the Legion of Honour may have been just clueless and incompetent). I didn’t tell Szunerits that there is indeed such a commercial service already, Proofig by Dror Kolodkin-Gal:
“Don’t let online controversies and aggressive blogs easily ruin everything you’ve worked for to build your reputation […] Whether the image issue is innocent or intentional, the outcome is still the same. Bloggers will attack that publication with image issues, which will damage your reputation and may even lead to a costly investigation. We are…
“What about we try out. The next 4 papers I do send to you as pdf file and you do some screening by whoever you want and we see what it gives? This is a good case study and will show the value Then I send the next 4 without IT service to see the verdict?”
Told you, there will be clowns.
Part two: there is a Ukrainian aspect in this scam.
“Prof. Dr. Svetlana Drobyazko, The European Academy of Sciences Ltd and Scientific Publication Service are a symptom, not a cause, of the current problems in academic publishing. ” – Nick Wise
One recurrent name on Szunerit’s papers is Volodymyr Turcheniuk, who used to be her PhD student in Lille, his co-supervisor back in Ukraine was Vladimir Zaitsev, chemistry professor at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, with another professorship in Brazil, at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro. The thesis was defended in Lille in 2016, see below. Volodymyr has a brother, Kostiantyn Turcheniuk, who did PhD in Kyiv and who, before moving to USA in 2015, worked as Szunerits’ postdoc in Lille while Volodymyr did PhD in her lab.
“The particles in this article (10.1039/c5tb01704a) are referred to as AuPd NPs–rGO–PEG nanocomposites, whereas in 10.1039/C5TA05730B, they are described as Au–Pd NPs/rGO (unPEGylated).“
“The noise in the XPS curves in Figure 4a of this article and Figure 3e of 10.1142/S1793984415400024 (red curve) is much more similar than expected. [..] Two different materials are presented: rGO-PEG and AuPd NPs–rGO–PEG nanocomposites (in this article).”
The spectra from that paper were reused in another study by our Lille papermillers with Zaitsev, the Turcheniuk brothers, and many other Ukrainians:
“FIgure 2C in this article looks identical to figure 3C in 10.1039/c5tb01704a.” Szunerits: “I tried to overlayed the XPS and for me there differences, on the left hand side for example, no?“
Worth noting that also French researchers relied on fake science like this for their careers. Regular co-author Julie Bouckaert became a tenured CNRS researcher in Lille. And Barras you already know, he did well also, here thanks to antibiotic nanodiamonds:
“.The control condition looks identical to the Staphyloccocus Aureus condition” E.coli image is just the control image, rotated.
On PubPeer, Szunerits made her verdict:
“indeed the images got mixed but. However it does not change anything on the final results of the paper.”
A Correction was swiftly issued on 19 October 2023:
“The authors regret the mistake in Fig. 5 where the viabilities of S. aureus and E. coli in the presence of menthol modified nanodiamonds (ND-menthol) are shown. A new Fig. 5 is provided.
The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.”
Without affecting any of the final results or causing any further inconveniences, that same E.coli image from that figure appeared in another paper one from the same lab, this time described as “ND-Man3“, with Szunerits again proclaiming: “the scientific context of the paper does not change.” Also an electron microscopy picture of a nanodiamond transmutated while travelling:
There were other problems in that paper – photos of vials after 0 hours and 1 month aiming to prove stability of nanodiamonds, are identical.
No Ukrainians to scapegoat on this study by Szunerits and Boukherroub, with the same magic diamond, this time presented as “Man-ND”. The modestly titled paper opened with the words: “We report herein the unprecedented finding…”
Unprecedented indeed, even more than you thought! The nanodiamond image from these three papers from 2015 then resurfaced as “ND-mannan” in 2016, featuring both Turcheniuk brothers and Zaitsev. That study also has other problems:
And then, this magic nanodiamond returned in 2021 to treat COVID-19! Maybe it is the secret technology behind the failed CorDial-1 device? No Turcheniuks and their Kyiv mentor here, but the Ukrainian first author Rostyslav Bilyy is professor at Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University. He used to be part of Szunerits’ EU-funded PANG project, for the “development of graphene-based nanocomposites and film for the eradication of pathogens notably in wound infections“. There are other Ukrainian co-authors, all from the Lviv university, Galyna Bila is almost certainly Rostyslav’s wife:
“What is surprising is that in this paper nanodiamonds are coupled to a peptide (pancoronavirus) as a vaccine formulation against SARS-CoV-2 while in the other paper nanodiamonds are coupled to menthol (ND-menthol).”
In November 2023, PubPeer users reported that the figure has been stealthily replaced by the publisher, without any notice. Only on 30 November 2023, the publisher MDPI issued this Correction:
“In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 2a as published. The TEM image of a modified ND rather than an ND itself is shown. The TEM image of the ND has been reported before and a link to the reference is provided. […] The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.“
“He has embarked on a path of unacceptable slander, not only against me, but also against my colleagues (Prof. Oleg Smutok, Prof. Arnold Kiv, Prof. Vladimir Solovyov). We have all the necessary evidence to bring Leonid Schneider to justice for slander and moral turpitude.” – Taras Kavetskyy.
I wrote to Bilyy, in Ukrainian even. He replied right away, proudly pointing me to the above Correction, and otherwise, with this (translated):
“These aspects do not reflect aspects of my work or my group. But, rather, it looks invented and directed against my co-author. Prof. Szuneritz is a sincere scientist whose contribution to science is much envied. And in many cases, the criticism seems to have been pulled out from thin air, such as the uniform shape of the noise peaks, which are a kind of signature of the device and this is known to specialists in the field. The contributor’s anonymity does not allow us to assess his professional level. The problems solved by Prof. Szuneritz and her group are of great scientific interest and have practical value, because they are embodied in sensors and diagnostic devices that really help people. […]
I advise you to study the essence of the matter more deeply, and not to chase sensations – they do not last long. As for reasonable criticism – I’m always for it, but according to the legislation in force in my (and probably your) country – anonymous reports are not considered (those times have already passed).“
I am not sure if the last sentence was a veiled legal threat, but Bilyy definetely accused me and my colleagues of being Stalinist henchmen. Which is funny, because French academia is built on Stalinism:
As Le Monde brought into public light the Catherine Jessus affair with its whitewashed data manipulation and the growing academic protest, a counter-revolution put its foot in. A signature list in the worst Stalinist tradition was published, organised by the very elite of French academia (mostly members of Academie de Sciences), and signed by hundreds,…
Here is our much envied Szunerits, whose magic devices saved millions of lives (in some parallel universe), with Boukherroub and Zaitsev again, and with another Ukrainian mentee – Ievgen Mazurenko, who used to be postdoc in Lille and is presently in Marseille:
“SEM image in Figure 1C exhibits identical patterns (in yellow squares) to another SEM image in Figure 1A […] different conditions for image acquisition.”
The first author and former Marie Curie Fellowship-funded postdoc Palaniappan Subramanian did well – he is now senior researcher in Pilsen, Czechia, solving renewable energy issues with whatever tricks he learned in Lille.
Zaitsev may have sent whole delegations of his trainees to Szunerits lab, with the pleasant side effect of his becoming co-author on Lille fabrications:
“Two raman spectra in Figure 1B of this article are identical.”
I wrote to Zaitsev, also in Ukrainian. He replied, thanking me for my work (translated):
“It is very good that there is such a site where scientists can analyze the publications of colleagues and identify academic dishonesty. I will also be happy to comment on my impressions. But I can give my comments to a person who can prove his professionalism. Your email was sent from a private mail server that can belong to anyone. I hope you are working somewhere. It is best to correspond using official mailboxes, as I do in this letter. Once again, I respect you for your efforts to expose academic dishonesty…”
After I invited Zaitsev to verify my identity by using For Better Science contact form, he didn’t reply again. Strange, Bilyy’s using a gmail account for scientific communications is perfectly OK.
“…the Commission emphasized that some of the members of the author’s team paid lip service to integrity in science, while at the same time consciously or unconsciously allowing deviations from the principles they promoted in their own activities. “
Now, for some some Plasmonic Destruction, which is almost a heavy metal band with a urinary tract infection, by Turcheniuk and the Lille papermillers, and do pay attention to a certain non-Ukrainian coauthor:
“In Figure 8B, the 4 curves appear to be multiples of one another, with the same noise pattern”
“In Figure 5, the error bars are unexpectedly shaped, with the vertical line sticking out at the tops and bottoms. The colored filling of the bars do not match their outlines.”
“The TEM image of rGO-PEG-NH2 in Figure 3B of this article is the same as in Figure 4B of 10.1142/S1793984415400024.”
That paper reused data from another Turcheniuk study, again pay attention to its certain co-author (clue: the name is Italian):
“The exact same noise is displayed for two different systems rGO-PEG versus rGO-PEG-NH2.”
Yes dear reader, Jolanda Spadavecchia, an Italian-born nanofabricator in Paris, senior researcher at CNRS with a huge PubPeer record of over 30 fake papers, who featured in several installments of Friday Shorts and in Le Monde. Her fraud was exposed by the whistleblower and her colleague, Raphael Levy. 3 of Spadavecchia’s papers were already retracted (one of them then re-published in a predatory journal), and yet CNRS declared her totally innocent of any suspicions of research misconduct. Instead, Levy was put on trial for research misconnduct and harassment, based on Spadavecchia’s charges against him (read here and here). When Dorothy Bishop complained in an open letter on her blog, two alpha males, CNRS President Antoine Petit and CNRS research integrity manager Remy Mosseri, did not budge but instead arrogantly tried to bully Bishop into retracting her open letter.
So how do you think did CNRS, the University of Lille and IEMN institute (where the Nanobiointerfaces group is hosted), react to my notification of suspected research misconduct?
Frédérique Vidal has been professor for molecular genetics and rector of the University of Nice before she became the currently serving cabinet Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation in France. The French government keeps responding with threats of legal action to earlier evidence of data irregularities in her published research, this is why I…
They wiped their bottoms with it, spat rude prophanities in my direction, probably considered deploying siganture campaigns and secret service again, to find out the identites of the critics. In any case, they did not react at all. My notification was not admitted. Lille Papermille is safe from any “investigation”.
Think of how many millions of public funds, much of it EU Horizon 2020 money, went into Szuerits’ and Boukharroub’s papermill science. And then let’s all again discuss how hopelessly corrupt Ukraine is, compared to REAL European states like France. Yes, I am being sarcastic here.
Update 6.12.2023
Inside news reached me that
Szunerits and her a “coworker in next office“ Boukherroub are actually a married couple
University of Lille and CNRS knew about data manipulation and toxic lab climate, and covered it all up
Count me unsurprised on either count.
One-Time
Monthly
I thank all my donors for supporting my journalism. You can be one of them! Make a one-time donation:
I thank all my donors for supporting my journalism. You can be one of them! Make a monthly donation:
Thank you very much for denouncing this type of practice… It is a pity that institutions are not disturbed, during laboratory evaluations, by the scientific overproduction of certain researchers… whom they praise on the contrary…
I Believe this kind of investigations are very important since can be resalted in essential improvement of the research and scientific publications. I would be happy to see such manuscript screening integrated with editorial officers of tbe journals.
Wrong, dear Africabos! CNRS president, Little Antoine, has declared that scientific fraud was ‘infinitesimal’ at CNRS (Cheating Never Ruins Self-advancement)
Are you serious? That’s the only thing you retain from this article? I am sure you are working in a very prestigious university for having such smart comments… 😂
Same photos of the flasks with different labellings; these kind of image duplications of laboratory equipment and solutions are some of my favourite to spot. Very nice catch!
Nanoscience seems particularly afflicted by research nonsense, in some areas becoming nearly unsalvageable, wound healing/nanoparticles papers are suffering from something analogous to Kessler Syndrome, the research environment is polluted to the point of becoming impossible to navigate.
‘But I can give my comments to a person who can prove his professionalism.
Your email was sent from a private mail server that can belong to anyone.
I hope you are working somewhere. It is best to correspond using official mailboxes, as I do in this letter.’
So, let me get this straight: the papers, possibly as authentic as a rubber crutch, can frolic in the realm of fabrication, yet the dissenting voices, those who raise an eyebrow at the audacity of their counterfeit existence, must be flesh-and-blood entities, and, of course, adorned in the cloak of professionalism?
It’s a conundrum of the highest order, a puzzle that thrusts us into the depths of profound philosophical contemplation. One can’t help but ponder the essence of reality itself, as if the very fabric of existence were woven with threads of irony. Marvelous, isn’t it?
There must be hundreds of trolls out there, impersonating Leonid Schneider while asking scientists to comment on their papers on PubPeer.
Btw, Bilyy always uses a gmail address.
Gmail? Now that’s a whole new level of ‘public-ness.’ It’s not just your run-of-the-mill private email server like Hillary’s; no, it’s as public as it can possibly be.
I have found that his wife have over ten publications with Sabine Szunerits, while she spent only half year in this lab. That had to be very fruitful post-doc!
The plot on Wikipedia reads like a drunk American sex fantasy, and yes, the heroes win, quit sinning, and get rich at the end.
I would like our story to end with Susanne and Rabah moving in with Guido and Laurence (and Carlos!).
It will be the best sitcom series ever. In one episode, Guido’s old buddy Didier comes visiting, bringing drugs.
Yeah ! I made a commentary on the blog of Hervé Maisonneuve, a true knight of scientific integrity (https://www.redactionmedicale.fr). Sorry it’s in French… but you all can use Google Translate:
« Bof… Pas de souci ! Spadavecchia a été condamnée à un mois de suspension (c’est elle qui – entre autres turpitudes – a republié dans une revue prédatrice un article rétracté – en changeant quelques auteurs au passage. Du jamais vu !). Le couple Szunerits – Boukherroub sera condamné à 36 heures de travaux d’intérêt général. Et les lanceurs d’alerte se feront insulter, as usual… Mais le rapport officiel de blanchiment du CNRS sera bien sûr tenu secret. La routine, quoi…
Et Szunerits gardera sa médaille d’argent du CNRS (c’est la saison des médailles en chocolat) et sa légion d’honneur ».
I cannot add anything else…
Found your comment and Google translated it:
“The Szunerits – Boukherroub couple will be sentenced to 36 hours of community service. And the whistleblowers will be insulted, as usual… “ https://www.redactionmedicale.fr/2023/12/un-cas-a-suivre
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/XLWH4PJDC5IVRCNWNCCZTL2AU4.jpg)
For Better Science 
Thank you very much for denouncing this type of practice… It is a pity that institutions are not disturbed, during laboratory evaluations, by the scientific overproduction of certain researchers… whom they praise on the contrary…
LikeLike
I Believe this kind of investigations are very important since can be resalted in essential improvement of the research and scientific publications. I would be happy to see such manuscript screening integrated with editorial officers of tbe journals.
LikeLike
Thank you, Dr Zaitsev. Дуже дякую.
LikeLike
Center for Notoriously Ridiculous Science (CNRS) stricks again!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrong, dear Africabos! CNRS president, Little Antoine, has declared that scientific fraud was ‘infinitesimal’ at CNRS (Cheating Never Ruins Self-advancement)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh my, I hope I have not offended Dr. “Petit Mais Costaud”….I deserve a dreadful “blâme administratif”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you serious? That’s the only thing you retain from this article? I am sure you are working in a very prestigious university for having such smart comments… 😂
LikeLike
Same photos of the flasks with different labellings; these kind of image duplications of laboratory equipment and solutions are some of my favourite to spot. Very nice catch!
Nanoscience seems particularly afflicted by research nonsense, in some areas becoming nearly unsalvageable, wound healing/nanoparticles papers are suffering from something analogous to Kessler Syndrome, the research environment is polluted to the point of becoming impossible to navigate.
LikeLike
‘But I can give my comments to a person who can prove his professionalism.
Your email was sent from a private mail server that can belong to anyone.
I hope you are working somewhere. It is best to correspond using official mailboxes, as I do in this letter.’
So, let me get this straight: the papers, possibly as authentic as a rubber crutch, can frolic in the realm of fabrication, yet the dissenting voices, those who raise an eyebrow at the audacity of their counterfeit existence, must be flesh-and-blood entities, and, of course, adorned in the cloak of professionalism?
It’s a conundrum of the highest order, a puzzle that thrusts us into the depths of profound philosophical contemplation. One can’t help but ponder the essence of reality itself, as if the very fabric of existence were woven with threads of irony. Marvelous, isn’t it?
LikeLike
There must be hundreds of trolls out there, impersonating Leonid Schneider while asking scientists to comment on their papers on PubPeer.
Btw, Bilyy always uses a gmail address.
LikeLike
Gmail? Now that’s a whole new level of ‘public-ness.’ It’s not just your run-of-the-mill private email server like Hillary’s; no, it’s as public as it can possibly be.
LikeLike
Interesting reaction on social media:
https://x.com/DrMartinJN/status/1732787715735699560?s=20
This is the paper:
Palaniappan Subramanian , Joanna Niedziolka-Jonsson , Adam Lesniewski , Qian Wang , Musen Li , Rabah Boukherroub , Sabine Szunerits Preparation of reduced graphene oxide–Ni(OH)2composites by electrophoretic deposition: application for non-enzymatic glucose sensing Journal of Materials Chemistry A (2014) doi: 10.1039/c4ta00123k
“The SEM image of gold/rGO electrodes in Figure 1B of this article is the same as in Figure 4A of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2012.03.004.
In this article: SEM image of gold/rGO electrodes.
In 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2012.03.004: SEM image of graphene modified silicon.”
LikeLike
I have found that his wife have over ten publications with Sabine Szunerits, while she spent only half year in this lab. That had to be very fruitful post-doc!
LikeLike
Leonid, you have forgotten the movie “The Girl Next Door”, its plot very well resembles the real couple activity.
Sharks with graphene lasers containing nanoparticles if you fail in providing IT support.
LikeLike
Haven’t watched that film!
LikeLike
Don’t need to, title and plot fit in pretty well in this case.
LikeLike
The plot on Wikipedia reads like a drunk American sex fantasy, and yes, the heroes win, quit sinning, and get rich at the end.
I would like our story to end with Susanne and Rabah moving in with Guido and Laurence (and Carlos!).
It will be the best sitcom series ever. In one episode, Guido’s old buddy Didier comes visiting, bringing drugs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just learned from a freshly published Le Monde article that an investigation was opened at Lille and CNRS. Also learned what result to expect: Spadavecchia was already sanctioned with a suspension for… 30 days.
Szunerits is unlikely to get even that: she is not only Knight of Honour Legion, but also recipient of CNRS Silver Medal 2018.
She is also EiC of Sensors & Diagnostics, the journal where some of the fake data was published.
Le Monde reporting:
https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2023/12/19/soupcons-d-inconduite-scientifique-pour-un-couple-de-chercheurs_6206696_1650684.html
Free version here:
https://agencefrance24.com/soupcons-dinconduite-scientifique-pour-un-couple-de-chercheurs/
LikeLike
Yeah ! I made a commentary on the blog of Hervé Maisonneuve, a true knight of scientific integrity (https://www.redactionmedicale.fr). Sorry it’s in French… but you all can use Google Translate:
« Bof… Pas de souci ! Spadavecchia a été condamnée à un mois de suspension (c’est elle qui – entre autres turpitudes – a republié dans une revue prédatrice un article rétracté – en changeant quelques auteurs au passage. Du jamais vu !). Le couple Szunerits – Boukherroub sera condamné à 36 heures de travaux d’intérêt général. Et les lanceurs d’alerte se feront insulter, as usual… Mais le rapport officiel de blanchiment du CNRS sera bien sûr tenu secret. La routine, quoi…
Et Szunerits gardera sa médaille d’argent du CNRS (c’est la saison des médailles en chocolat) et sa légion d’honneur ».
I cannot add anything else…
LikeLike
Found your comment and Google translated it:
“The Szunerits – Boukherroub couple will be sentenced to 36 hours of community service. And the whistleblowers will be insulted, as usual… “
https://www.redactionmedicale.fr/2023/12/un-cas-a-suivre
LikeLike