@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar petersuber , to random

finally (after 25 years) retracted the primary study concluding that is safe for humans. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide, manufactured by .
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715

h/t @civodul.
https://fediscience.org/@[email protected]/115661046263238211

Among the grounds for the retraction:

  • "The article's conclusions…are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto."
  • "Employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors."
  • "The authors may have received [undisclosed] financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article."

Remember that in 2020, the "relied almost entirely on studies" to conclude that Roundup was safe.
https://x.com/petersuber/status/1224039859272212480

In 2016, Monsanto made a show of sharing its research on glyphosate with the public. But instead of making it , it put print copies in a room in Brussels, required registration to use the room, and then closed the room after two months.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190119214350/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/ioy1fVqaLy1

Two questions for follow up studies:

  1. Why did Elsevier's 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 need 25 years to retract this piece of Monsanto advertising?
  2. What harm did the article cause during the last 25 years?
@actualham@social.coop avatar actualham , to random

Happy Halloween, punks! Let's all take a moment to remember the year I made my confused husband dress up as a paywall so I could be Open Access Hero.

A person shown from behind wearing an orange cape with the CC Creative Commons logo on it.

A person shown from behind wearing an orange cape with the CC Creative Commons logo on it.
ALT
@rmounce@mastodon.social avatar rmounce , to random

Publish with Elsevier at your peril...

“Williams-Hoffman was surprised to discover that the online version of the paper contained an AI-generated question and answer section immediately below the abstract. She was even more surprised to read its claim that the paper was based on just three measurements, not 51. “

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ai-summary-trashed-authors-work-and-took-weeks-be-corrected

@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar petersuber , to AcademicChatter group

Peter Barr explains why three UK recently cancelled their agreements and why their are unsustainable.
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250211161002365

PS: For my own objections to these deals overlap significantly with Barr's. See the Recommendation 4 ("Move away from read-and-publish agreements").
https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/


academicchatter@a.gup.pe icon AcademicChatter group

@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar petersuber , to AcademicChatter group
@mrundkvist@archaeo.social avatar mrundkvist , to random

Mass resignation of the editorial board of the Journal of Human . has gone bad. Very bad, in fact.

image/jpeg

@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar petersuber , to random
@jonny@neuromatch.social avatar jonny , to random

employee fired for speaking up about greenwashing... like its not even greenwashing straight up sells informatics tools to fossil fuel companies based off academic geology research to target fossil fuel exploration.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/LyallvElsevierIncetalDocketNo124cv12022DMassAug062024CourtDocket?doc_id=XM9I11IUDL9K5BTMAIM5M9MI6D

@M@nerdculture.de avatar M , to random German

Ich habe ja schon Mal vor gewarnt.
Jetzt unterstützt euch euer Internetanbieter auch damit, dass ihr auch ja niemals ausversehen auf diese Seiten geht:
https://netzpolitik.org/2024/netzsperre-fuer-wissenschaft-groesste-deutsche-provider-blockieren-sci-hub/

Aufpassen müsst ihr weiterhin, wenn ihr ausvershen auf seid.
Auf keinen Fall diesen Bot anschreiben:
https://t.me/scihubot
Nicht, dass ihr noch ausversehen hinter die kommt!

M OP ,
@M@nerdculture.de avatar

Wichtig noch zu wissen: Da ja jetzt sicher ist, da in Deutschland die DNS einträge umleiten.

Geht bitte auf keinen Fall auf http://libgen.is/ um hinter eine für Wissenschaftsartikel zu schauen.

Libgen ist nämlich gebauso schlecht wie scihub, denn es Spiegelt die Datenbank.

Denkt doch mal an uns Autor*innen!
Denkt immer daran, wie viel wir bekommen, wenn wir bei & Co. veröffentlichen: 0(!) €!
Wollt ihr uns das wegnehmen???