PubSmear

Who Watches the Watchers? Anonymous “academic integrity watchdogs” are mounting coordinated online attacks on scientists of all stripes – with real and lasting consequences A must-read article by @J_Strachan_Edit and Frank van Geel, published in The Analytical Scientist (@tAnaSci) on July 21, 2025. Elias Verum contributed on behalf of ScienceGuardians™ Let`s sink in. 🧵 THREAD

⚡️🔱 ScienceGuardians’ Announcement in Preparation for the Third Piece of the Puzzle: A Battle for Academic Integrity 🚨 It remains truly unbelievable that nearly 20 million researchers and scientists, along with the entire academic ecosystem, including universities, research institutions, and publishers, have been manipulated by a tightly coordinated group of perhaps 30 individuals. We address the academic community today, reaffirming that this is a long-overdue fight against a network mob that has been strategically evolving for over a decade. What began as a cluster of opportunists has grown into something far more deceptive — now also including individuals operating under the guise of scientists, working to undermine the very integrity of our academic system. The perpetrators of the PubPeer Network Mob are exposed, and we have warned them. But criminals are all alike — they continue down their path until fully caught. They simply cannot change course, as their existence depends on this cycle of deception and manipulation. 📅 On April 12, 2025, Perpetrator 1, a financial advisor with no scientific or academic credentials — whose fraudulent, malicious activities have been thoroughly documented and revealed by us in a series of investigative threads (teapawt.org/SciGuardians/status/19… and teapawt.org/SciGuardians/status/19…) — made an attempt to link ScienceGuardians to Professor Wafiq El-Deiry (see Image 1). This was soon echoed by Perpetrator 4 on their derogatory blog, explicitly claiming that Professor El-Deiry was behind the entire setup (see the eighth snapshot here: teapawt.org/SciGuardians/status/19…). The narrative was further perpetuated on multiple occasions by Perpetrator 2. 🔎 Remember Perpetrator Y, whose exposure we promised in the first snapshot of our recent investigative thread (teapawt.org/SciGuardians/status/19…)? Let’s now designate them as Perpetrator 5. 📆 On April 19, 2025, Perpetrator 5 amplified this falsehood, as shown in Image 2, stating on their Bluesky account: "On Twitter/X, @SciGuardians is promising to 'uncover' some big conspiracy of fraudulent @pubpeer.com users. But in reality, the account appears to be run by a disgruntled scientist [Professor Wafiq El-Deiry] with dozens of problematic papers." They repeated this claim on a fraudulent blog they operate under the guise of science integrity (Image 3), writing: "Becoming ScienceGuardians The ScienceGuardians’ website claims to be a ‘global hub for upholding the highest standards of integrity‘ and a ‘beacon of trust and accountability‘ seem to not match the libelous language they spout on X very well. But… freedom of speech and all of that, right? Anyone can become a member of their platform, as long as you have an email address associated with an academic or publishing institution – no luck trying to sign up with your gmail account. They claim to be inclusive, where ‘every member, regardless of their role in the scienceguardians community, can share their insights and concerns. This inclusivity ensures that the perspectives of all stakeholders are respected and considered.’ So I just signed up with my Stanford affiliate email address. Let’s see how inclusive they are. Will they approve my membership?" ✅ As with all members of ScienceGuardians™, Perpetrator 5 was verified through their real identity, institutional email, and confirmed scientific expertise. Like any verified member, they were entitled to participate in discussions within their declared areas of expertise. ⚠️ But they immediately weaponized this access, placing 15 of Professor Wafiq El-Deiry’s papers on ScienceGuardians’ Post-Publication Peer Review platform in one wave and within a short period of time — a calculated tactic meant to overwhelm the recipient, induce panic and intimidation, and force submission. This tactic is not new among the PubPeer Network Mob. 🧩 Recall Professor Jörg Rinklebe from @Uni_Wuppertal — over 500 of his publications targeted on PubPeer, with over 100 records created in just one month by the fraudulent account Desmococcus antarctica, operated by Perpetrator 2 (Documented here teapawt.org/SciGuardians/status/19…). Imagine the flood of emails, the mental toll, and the psychological strain inflicted by such coordinated harassment. 🔍 To give further context: Perpetrator 2 is inclined to populate PubPeer pages aggressively, posting dozens of comments in rapid succession, often filled with unsubstantiated accusations — bombarding authors with notifications, emails, and pressure within short windows of time. 📸 Then, as seen in Image 4, Perpetrator 5 publicly announced their verified status on ScienceGuardians — ironically the very association they and their fellow mob members worked so hard to pin on Professor El-Deiry. In Image 5, Perpetrator 2 expressed disbelief, expecting ScienceGuardians to operate like PubPeer — censoring, moderating, and allowing only their narrative to dominate. 🔱 But let us reiterate: ScienceGuardians™ was founded to uphold transparency, fairness, and academic integrity. We do not — and will not — censor voices. We do not — and will not — moderate comments posted by verified users. ➡️ Having failed in their initial tactic, Perpetrator 2 quickly shifted, attempting to link ScienceGuardians to other individuals (see Image 6), including a dubious figure in India — someone known for bizarre claims on LinkedIn — in a desperate bid to fabricate connections. Our position remains clear: ScienceGuardians™ is not affiliated with any individual or organization. We have repeatedly warned the PubPeer Network Mob that their efforts to tie us to others will be futile and counterproductive. The release of each piece of the puzzle will further illuminate our commitment, our methods, and our guiding principles for empowering the academic community. 🌐 This battle is bigger than any one outlet or opinion. It affects the global integrity of science. Nearly twenty million researchers and scientists worldwide have been manipulated for years by a tightly coordinated group of perhaps 30 individuals. Over more than a decade, the PubPeer Network Mob has refined their deceptive tactics, operating without ethical boundaries. Some have even misled well-meaning academics into believing their actions stem from genuine concern for scientific integrity. ⚔️ This is not an easy fight. It is complex, deeply entrenched, and demands patience, strategy, and a united front with full coordination to expose and counter the damage being done. 🔥 But their agitation is visible. Perpetrator 1, clearly unsettled, published a confession-like monologue on PubPeer, treating it as a personal blog. Perpetrator 5, equally rattled, pinned a desperate post to their profile — as shown in Image 7 — in a failed attempt to undermine ScienceGuardians™. 💡 This is a clear opportunity for the well-intentioned members of the academic community who have been misled for years to step back, see the full picture, and realize that these perpetrators are scared. They have mobilized their full resources and foot soldiers because they know that ScienceGuardians™ poses an existential threat to their malicious presence and agenda. 🔱 Together, we will cleanse the academic community of the PubPeer Network Mob, while remaining steadfast in our mission to empower every researcher and scientist. 📌⏳ Stay with us. The third piece of the puzzle is coming. 🔗 Join us and take part in building a fairer, more accountable research culture: 🔱 scienceguardians.com @HHS_ORI @NIH @C0PE @UKRIO @EneriProject @EnrioAssoc @EmbassySci @ClarivateAG @timeshighered @ElsevierConnect @WileyGlobal @SpringerNature @WeAreTandF @PLOS @APSphysics @AIP_Publishing @CellCellPress @aaas @ScienceMagazine @TheLancet @Nature @RoySocChem @ACSPublications @Sage_Publishing @FrontiersIn @PhD_Genie @ThePhDPlace @PhDVoice @AcademicChatter @hapyresearchers @OpenAcademics @thephdstory @Scholarshipps @ashleyruba_phd @AIRSAIndia @phdhardtalk @TressAcademic

🔱 On ScienceGuardians’ Post-Publication Peer Review platform, we have established clear principles to ensure scientific discourse remains respectful, transparent, and accountable: 1️⃣ Verified Participation All participants are fully verified upon registration — including their true identity, institutional affiliation, professional email address, and area of expertise — even if they choose to remain anonymous publicly. 2️⃣ One Individual, One Account Each user is allowed only one verified account, making it impossible for a single person or group to operate multiple identities. This prevents the orchestration of attacks and promotes integrity in engagement. 3️⃣ Respectful and Balanced Dialogue All scientific discussions are expected to be conducted with mutual respect, accountability, and balance — not through intimidation, haste, or assumptions. Every participant is held to this standard. 4️⃣ Constructive Engagement Before Escalation Authors are given adequate time to respond. Commenters are encouraged to engage constructively and to refrain from escalating to editors or publishers prematurely. We advise all users to first initiate a discussion on the platform and provide authors with a fair opportunity to engage before considering external outreach. 5️⃣ Inclusive and Expert-Driven Commentary All verified members of the academic community with relevant expertise are welcome to join the discussion and contribute meaningfully to the evaluation of the work. 🔱 These principles are in place to ensure that post-publication peer review remains a process that empowers the academic community — rather than undermines it. 🔗 Join us and take part in building a fairer, more accountable research culture: 🔱 scienceguardians.com/

🔱 Why Science Needs Post-Publication Peer Review That Empowers, Not Intimidates 1️⃣ Academic dialogue must include more than raising concerns. On the ScienceGuardians Post-Publication Peer Review platform (scienceguardians.com), researchers and scientists can: ✅ Raise concerns about published work ✅ Share ideas for improving studies ✅ Engage in open, constructive discussion ✅ Empower each other in the process 2️⃣ Misconduct concerns can be addressed through respectful dialogue between authors and expert commenters. Possible outcomes: 🔹 Suggestions for improvement in methodology or future studies 🔹 An erratum (corrigendum) 🔹 Or, when necessary, a voluntary author-led retraction 3️⃣ For years, the PubPeer Network Mob has weaponized retraction — taking pride in forcing them through coordinated, often malicious tactics. But retraction, when justified, is not punishment — it’s a way to honestly correct the record. 4️⃣ Authors, like anyone, can make mistakes — intentional or not. Both often stem from the same root cause: A lack of training, guidance, and support. 5️⃣ Empowered researchers don’t resort to misconduct. They don’t fabricate or manipulate data. They don’t chase unethical shortcuts. They don’t get involved in science-eroding activities like paper mills. They publish honestly — because they know: 👉 Bad results are as valuable as good ones. 6️⃣ Early-career researchers and postgraduate students must be taught: 📌 You don’t publish to be promoted or become famous. 📌 You publish to inform the scientific community, to contribute to knowledge, and to advance science — the backbone of civilization. 7️⃣ At ScienceGuardians, users are verified (anonymity optional), but scientific opinions are never moderated. This ensures accountability and prevents manipulation — unlike PubPeer, where coordinated anonymous attacks go unchecked. 8️⃣ Science needs a future free from fear, intimidation, and mob tactics. It needs honesty. It needs support. It needs accountability. That’s the future we’re building — together. ⚠️ And this is precisely what the PubPeer Network Mob and its allied institutions fear most. They want the academic community depowered, riddled with misconduct, intimidated, and vulnerable — because that’s what sustains their influence. They are already unsettled by the ScienceGuardians Guidelines, which inform researchers of their rights, their value, and the ethical, principled path to conducting research with integrity. 🔱 We, at ScienceGuardians need your help to ensure that this message — and these guidelines — reach every corner of the academic world, especially: 🎓 University students 🏫 Faculty 🏢 Research integrity offices and departments ✨ Be empowered — and empower others. Together, we protect the future of science. 👉 Join us: scienceguardians.com #ScienceIntegrity #AcademicFreedom #PostPublicationReview #ResearchEthics #Empowerment

That can — and should — be done on ScienceGuardians' Post-Publication Peer Review platform at scienceguardians.com, where researchers and scientists can freely register, choose to remain anonymous if they prefer, and begin commenting and discussing their thoughts, ideas, or concerns. We do not moderate the content of any scientific comments — but we do verify all new users upon registration. This critical safeguard ensures that no one can create hundreds of anonymous accounts to plant and execute orchestrated, malicious attacks and smear campaigns — a deeply rooted issue that has largely infested PubPeer. We warmly invite all members of the academic community to register freely and contribute to a respectful, constructive, and transparent discussion on each and every paper ever published — with the confidence that on ScienceGuardians, there is no intimidation, no extortion, and no disrespect.

⚡️ BREAKING: Uncovering the Next Layer of a Coordinated Campaign: A Closer Look into Orchestrated Harassment by Additional Perpetrators of the PubPeer Network Mob 🗂️📌 We have previously revealed how Perpetrators 1 and 2 target researchers and scientists through various false identities. Perpetrator 1, a financial advisor, with no scientific or academic credential, has explicitly confessed to operating under multiple aliases, one of which is Actinopolyspora biskrensis, responsible for 9,515 comments as of 1 April 2025 (a number that has since grown to 9,569 as of 17 April 2025). It is important to note that, by their own admission, this is only one of their many identities. 🗂️📌 We subsequently secured another significant written confession from Perpetrator 1, in which they confirmed knowing Hoya camphorifolia — a fraudulent anonymous account on PubPeer responsible for approximately 25,000 comments as of 1 April 2025. More crucially, they admitted in writing that the person behind Hoya camphorifolia also uses multiple false identities. We designate this individual as Perpetrator 3, and the two have acknowledged working together. 🧩 The first snapshot illustrates the close association between these individuals, with Perpetrator 1 referring to Perpetrator 3 by one of their false identities, Hoya camphorifolia. As stated in previous disclosures, we had already gathered compelling evidence of a high level of coordination between these two fraudulent actors, whose real identities are known to us. However, from a legal and investigative standpoint, obtaining an explicit confession and admission of guilt was critical. 🚨 This brings us to the pseudonym Clare Francis, known for having posted thousands of comments on PubPeer. The aggression and threats associated with this alias were best summarized by @TomReller of @ElsevierConnect: “Generally speaking, Clare was rather disruptive at first, but by now most editors and publishing teams have an approach in place when it comes to managing Clare’s demands and threats.” 🧩 As shown in the second snapshot, Perpetrator 1 has disclosed an important operational detail about Clare Francis: “Posts under a unique PubPeer name for each paper.” This means that Clare Francis, already a false identity, operates through a large number of additional fraudulent aliases on PubPeer. Below is a small sample of these accounts, along with their number of PubPeer entries as of 17 April 2025: Digitalis ciliata — 20 entries Cyclope pellucida — 1 entry Calotis scapigera — 2 entries Convolvulus dryadum — 6 entries Acrotrema costatum — 1 entry Daucus minusculus — 11 entries Zeltnera quitensis — 4 entries Bathysiphon flexilis — 2 entries Greya variata — 6 entries Zelandoperla decorata — 6 entries Bolitoglossa morio — 5 entries Apiomerus vexillarius — 9 entries …and many more. We could continue listing them, but it would quickly become monotonous due to the sheer number of fraudulent identities being operated by this individual, operating under a completely fabricated identity. ⚠️ This pattern of alias-driven harassment builds on a history of anonymity in scientific critique. In a 2011 Lab Times editorial (mathbabe.org/wp-content/uplo…), @RetractionWatch co-founder @ivanoransky and @armarcus defended Clare Francis’s anonymous whistle-blowing. This defense may have emboldened Francis’s alleged escalation into a central figure in the PubPeer Network Mob, using aliases to harass researchers. Oransky, now a PubPeer board member, praised the platform in a 2022 tweet as vital to science correction (“difficult to imagine… science itself… without PubPeer”), raising questions about oversight as alleged abuses proliferate on PubPeer. Notably, the only comment on that tweet came from a PubPeer Network Mob member, whose identity and malicious activities are known to us and will be addressed as we reveal further pieces of this puzzle. They wrote, “In an ideal world PubPeer would be supported by the NIH, which would also take it very seriously… Alas, we don’t live in an ideal world...”, highlighting the Mob’s advocacy for unchecked influence (see the third snapshot). 🚨 Perpetrator 1 has referred to Clare Francis on their X account more than 40 times, revealing additional details about their close association, as evidenced in the fourth snapshot. This relationship takes on greater significance given their shared fixation on a prominent cancer researcher, Professor Wafik S. El-Deiry (@weldeiry), a physician-scientist, Director of @BrownUCancer, and Associate Dean at @BrownMedicine, @BrownUniversity. 🎓 Professor El-Deiry is widely recognized as one of the top cancer researchers in the United States, and he is currently nominated by the @POTUS @RobertKennedyJr @DrJBhattacharya team for the prestigious position of Director of the National Cancer Institute (@theNCI). ⚠️ Perpetrator 1 has attacked Professor El-Deiry on their X account numerous times, including 26 attacks just over the five-day period from 12–17 April 2025. Meanwhile, Clare Francis has shown an unrelenting obsession, sending over 100 emails to nearly every institution with which Professor El-Deiry is affiliated. And yes — as many have come to expect — threats are a standard part of Clare Francis’ conduct. Among the many false accounts operated under the Clare Francis pseudonym is the anonymous identity Apiomerus vexillarius, which was created 8 months ago and has 9 entries on PubPeer, all targeting publications authored by Professor El-Deiry, as shown in the second snapshot. The magnitude of threats, disrespect, harassment, and extortion endured by Professor El-Deiry at the hands of Perpetrator 1 and Clare Francis is simply unimaginable. On 15 April, Professor El-Deiry publicly shared via X a cluster of orchestrated attacks carried out by members of the PubPeer Network Mob. All of these attacks occurred within a 22-minute window, each calling for the retraction of his articles (See fifth snapshot; 📸 snapshots 5–8 are included in the continuation of this thread ⬇️) 🔔 This campaign of coordinated harassment began in May 2024, after the publication of a scientific article by Professor El-Deiry and his team in Oncotarget entitled: “Transfected SARS-CoV-2 spike DNA for mammalian cell expression inhibits p53 activation of p21(WAF1), TRAIL Death Receptor DR5 and MDM2 proteins in cancer cells and increases cancer cell viability after chemotherapy exposure” 📌 As with previous cases we have documented, we at ScienceGuardians™ do not comment on the scientific content or conclusions of any paper. Our focus remains solely on exposing and addressing the orchestrated attacks, deceptive behaviors, and fraudulent tactics employed by members of the PubPeer Network Mob in their efforts to discredit researchers. Since that publication, the harassment has intensified dramatically, with close to 60 of Professor El-Deiry’s papers targeted on PubPeer over the past 8 months. 🚨 Remember Perpetrator 4, referenced in the second snapshot, who was praised by Perpetrator 1 as “highly influential”? This individual operates one of the major sections of the PubPeer Network Mob, running a derogatory blog that is: • Riddled with slander • Filled with unsubstantiated accusations • Saturated with mockery • Framed with inflammatory language This blog reflects a signature tactic employed by the PubPeer Network Mob: presenting partial truths to establish credibility, while subtly injecting misinformation, false accusations, and slander for strategic manipulation. As shown in the sixth snapshot, Perpetrator 4’s blog post dated 17 May 2024 launched an attack on Professor El-Deiry’s Oncotarget paper as part of a lengthy post — marking the beginning of a series of eight coordinated blog attacks against him, all of which used inflammatory and mocking rhetoric. Disrespect and ad hominem attacks are routine behavior among members of the PubPeer Network Mob. For example, in the seventh snapshot, Perpetrator 2 refers to Professor El-Deiry as “#BrownClown” (left image), and in another exchange with Perpetrator 1, both resort to vitriolic and defamatory language. In yet another attack, Perpetrator 2 falsely and publicly referred to both Professor Wafik El-Deiry (@weldeiry) and NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) as “rather dubious researchers” (bottom right image), further illustrating the persistent pattern of baseless personal smears aimed at discrediting respected figures in medicine and science. We are deeply sorry that we must share these disturbing realities with the academic community, but the scale of defamation and targeted harassment cannot be overstated. 🔱 We, at ScienceGuardians™, have, on multiple occasions, invited members of the academic and research communities to join this initiative and become Science Guardians themselves. Following the launch of the ScienceGuardians™ platform in November 2024, we prioritized outreach to those most affected by campaigns of harassment and defamation led by members of the PubPeer Network Mob. Professor El-Deiry was placed among those at the top of this list and was one of the first scientists to register on the platform at scienceguardians.com, also sharing it publicly on X. ⚠️ Since then, members of the PubPeer Mob have tried to falsely insinuate that Professor El-Deiry is the creator or a member of ScienceGuardians, as shown in the eighth snapshot, which was extracted from the derogatory blog operated by Perpetrator 4. 🔔 But we must pose a simple question: Would the founder of a sophisticated, well-designed, and fully supported platform like ScienceGuardians — one that offers a secure and constructive alternative to PubPeer, and whose post-publication peer review features effectively challenge and improve on platforms like PubPeer — be the first to register and promote the platform publicly in their own name? The answer is obvious: No. it would be highly illogical and counterproductive for anyone to reveal their identity in such a direct manner, particularly before the platform has had a chance to establish itself. And yet, here we are — confronted with a clear and easily verifiable example of how falsehoods and slander are being deliberately spread through this derogatory blog. The claim that Professor El-Deiry founded ScienceGuardians is not only baseless but so transparently false that even the most minimal scrutiny reveals it for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit a scientist by weaponizing manufactured narratives. 🛑 This pattern extends far beyond this single instance — much of the content published on this derogatory blog follows the same blueprint of distortion, misrepresentation, and coordinated personal attacks. 💡 Let us recall the words of one of ScienceGuardians’ legal advisors: “Perpetrators and criminals are rarely intelligent — they simply exploit fear and leverage intimidation as their primary tools of control.” This recent pattern of false accusations and clumsy narratives suggests only one thing: the perpetrators are growing agitated and frustrated. They are losing control of a space they once dominated — a space they used to harass and exploit vulnerable researchers through financially motivated, coordinated attacks. Now, 🔱 ScienceGuardians has disrupted this domain. The balance has shifted. The exploitation is being exposed. And the perpetrators, in their desperation, are beginning to unveil their own malicious tactics — ultimately exposing themselves. 📢 We call on @BrownUniversity, @BrownMedicine, @BrownUnivHealth, @NIH, and @HHSGov to immediately investigate these malicious, targeted, and orchestrated attacks on Professor Wafik El-Deiry — and to take a principled stand against the intimidation and threats propagated by mobs undermining academic integrity. ⚖️ We further urge full-scale investigations by federal and legal authorities, including: @FBI @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino @DHSgov @Sec_Noem @DOGE @elonmusk @secgov @TheJusticeDept @AGPamBondi @FinCENnews 🎯 These actions must be taken to protect the foundations of the scientific enterprise — and to ensure that fraudulent networks do not compromise the nation’s commitment to merit-based, transparent, and integrity-driven recruitment and leadership across public institutions. 📢 To global media and talk shows: Expose orchestrated network mobs harassing scientists for power and gain. The academic community demands accountability! @FoxNews @NEWSMAX @BreitbartNews @DailyCaller @dcexaminer @FDRLST @realDailyWire @OANN @townhallcom @NRO @AFP @france_soir @dwnews @derspiegel @el_pais @EFEnoticias @LaVanguardia @Agenzia_Ansa @Corriere

🔱 Thank you to everyone who has engaged with our recent post! We've received tremendous support, and we truly appreciate the participation from our community. 🚨 We’re now ready to reveal why we chose to expose Perpetrator 1 first and why they’ve been designated as #1 in this investigation. Contrary to what might have been perceived so far, Perpetrator 1 is not the most prominent, but rather the most compromised and the weakest link in the PubPeer Network Mob. This individual’s actions have been particularly telling, and by revealing them, we’ve been able to draw out crucial information that exposes the malicious activities within the network they belong to. 🔱 To every member of the academic community: Be patient. Watch closely. What we have revealed so far is just one piece of the puzzle. The light is rising steadily over a field once darkened by fear, intimidation, and harassment. What was forsaken as 'research integrity' will soon be reclaimed — through respect, empowerment, and constructive dialogue. 🔱🤝 Thank you for your continued engagement!