Cas (Stephen Casper) on Twitter / X

Jay Van Bavel, PhD on Twitter / X

I think it’s extremely unhealthy for any academic field to make it taboo to critique publications from senior or junior scholars or to critique certain popular methods. This makes the field worse or makes us look bad to people outside our field (including the public). It erodes…— Jay Van Bavel, PhD (@jayvanbavel) October 13, 2024

Eric Topol on Twitter / X

This is a FRAUDULENT paper, AI-generated. My name was used as an author and I had nothing to do with it, never saw it until today https://t.co/Ky60zJrMEZThe "Editors" Angelo Rossi Mori, David Mensah, and Zarnie Khadjesari should be reported. pic.twitter.com/2Z5CE8w4bn— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) April 22, 2026

Andreas De Block on Twitter / X

It took Nature three years to publish this rebuttal, which clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the original paper. In the meantime, the paper's conclusions influenced scientific debate and policy decisions. Such delays in correcting flawed research do real damage. https://t.co/QI3Ei3PE70— Andreas De Block (@DeblockBlock) August 13, 2026

Jason Shepherd on Twitter / X

I have quite a lot of thoughts on this..that won't fit in a tweet. Bottomline is that there are issues scientists in the US would love to improve - faster review, less grant writing, more stability and freedom to do risky science. The folks celebrating this doc are mostly../1 https://t.co/xlPAH9XYNC— Jason Shepherd (@JasonSynaptic) July 23, 2026

Shreya Shankar on Twitter / X

This problem has gotten significantly worse. As Twitter and other social media have become primary channels for sharing research, academics are now expected to make the same ideas legible and appealing to both the general public (to go "viral") and senior scholars (to get the… https://t.co/zPF3tKzbVa— Shreya Shankar (@sh_reya) July 25, 2026

“Paging Dr. Fraud”: The Fake Publishers That Are Ruining Science

For years, spurious journals have proliferated online, promising academic credibility in exchange for cash.

Elena Rossini 🌈 (@_elena@mastodon.social)

🚨 New post alert 📝 A deep dive into #WSocial with some fascinating findings: candid statements about their motives, a Greta Thunberg connection, potential AI plans (!!!) Why write about it again? I still had so many questions after publishing my first article. I spent 3 weeks watching every interview I could find and connecting the dots. I hope you'll enjoy this piece: 🔗 : https://blog.elenarossini.com/the-untold-story-about-w-social-unconventional-beginnings-strategic-pitches-conflicting-signals/ #blog #longread #privacy #DataMining #Europe

Chris Olah on Twitter / X

Research Intimacy: Internalizing obscure knowledge, equations, relationships, and ways of thinking related to a research topic.— Chris Olah (@ch402) August 16, 2020

Itai Yanai on Twitter / X

Is the scientific paper a fraud? Peter Medawar (Nobel Prize winner) suggested that publications are overly structured and formal, giving only a sanitized version of the discovery without revealing the thought process that actually led to it. pic.twitter.com/E3ttRPzcfL— Itai Yanai (@ItaiYanai) October 27, 2024

Why the Stockholm Declaration will never work

Abstract The Stockholm Declaration calls for a moral reformation of scientific publishing—replacing commercial publishers with scholar-led journals, rewarding quality over quantity and instituting independent oversight. While noble in spirit, it fundamentally misdiagnoses the disease. The crisis of science stems not from paper mills or profit motives but from systemic incentives that reward volume, novelty and prestige over validity and reliability. Non-profit ownership will not neutralize the prestige economy, sleuth-led policing cannot scale, and ‘integrity registries’ would merely replace metrics with surveillance. True reform requires rebuilding the publishing infrastructure as a public utility: publicly funded, free to publish and read, and stripped of hierarchy and financial incentives.

‘I Have a Folder in My Email Called Hate Mail’: Academic Public Engagement, Digital Hate and the Unequally Distributed Risks of Visibility

Public engagement through �traditional� and social media is an increasingly important way for scholars to communicate research w

rohit on Twitter / X

One of the most fun papers I've read in recent times. Excellent. Reminiscent of the good old days of science papers. pic.twitter.com/4a7qRTloSG— rohit (@krishnanrohit) December 30, 2024

Mel Andrews on Twitter / X

Whether predictive systems can be ethically—or even functionally—used in socially sensitive contexts depends on their epistemic credentials. I am delighted to see my work inform policy recommendations in a new report from Amnesty International. https://t.co/NbQBM31N5M pic.twitter.com/EXPgxXgszF— Mel Andrews (@bayesianboy) June 11, 2026

Stephen on Twitter / X

My experience is that once a journal publishes a paper the editors develop an almost parental attachment to it and will defend it to the death.— Stephen (@Stephen50000766) July 25, 2024

Michael 英泉 Eisen on Twitter / X

ALSO WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL JUST CITING PAPERS INSTEAD OF SPECIFIC PIECES OF DATA OR CLAIMS? https://t.co/dngS9d8nOW— Michael 英泉 Eisen (@mbeisen) May 16, 2026