https://www.newscientist.com/author/tom-gauld/

Tom Gauld is a famous science communicator. :)

Cody Showdy

As the resident black cat, I support this.

Ask [email protected]

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10/22/young-employees-death-puts-workplace-culture-in-spotlight-at-publisher-mdpi/

This site is credible.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_Watch
• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/retraction-watch/

These guys are amazing. They are doing the good work to change things. It links to the original news report (not English) with a lot more context:

https://www.stiripesurse.ro/caz-revoltator-in-bucuresti-o-tanara-de-27-de-ani-a-facut-infarct-la-serviciu-si-a-murit-i-s-a-facut-rau-dar-sefii-nu-au-lasat-o-sa-plece-acasa_3452867.html

The true Saddam, well, he’s in our hearts.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Please don’t feed Graham Hancock’s delulus.

It’s not a fraud. Science isn’t black and white. Discussing things is a good thing. It’s still peer reviewed and not retracted in a decent journal. Not everyone dismisses it. The authors have responded to some of the criticisms by publishing additional information in the linked “correction” (functions like an attachment added later). Science is a conversation.

Yeah, that critic made a career on doing hit pieces. I also find it unconvincing lmao.

This author is a crackpot that also went after Chomsky. Chomsky had a hilarious rebuttal from what I remember. He really has a thing for anarchists. I’ll trust these critics more when they do published rebuttals. I’m pretty sure several chapters in this book were published in some journals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10306201/

This paper has a lot of back and forth. Another commenter posted a rebuttal.

https://goblin.tools/

deleted by creator

“Abridged”

Glad it got a laugh. 😅

Don’t do this lol

It is The Primordial Soup