Journal Nature and corruption in science
Officially, it is called "research misconduct", sometimes - science fraud. It includes plagiarism. I have a "blog" - University of Toronto Fraud describing unprecedented "misconduct" of professor Ellen Larsen who was a supervisor of my PhD research for 5 years, and who fraudulently terminated my PhD program and removed me from the university to steal my research which has not been published. Following my departure, Ellen Larsen published three papers where she attributed to herself all my work and ideas. Her fraud and plagiarism are beyond any doubt; over 50 documents prove this, there has never been a better proof of plagiarism. Rarely, a criminal shows such contempt for the law as Ellen Larsen showed in the documents written by her. Rarely the victim of fraud is robbed so brutally and thrown out. This fraud is continuing: the university continues covering it up and Ellen Larsen is claiming important scientific discoveries in the plagiarised papers. Rarely a parasite and impostor is so rewarded.

On March 18, 2009, the journal Nature published the article "Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?" (Nature 458, 274-277 (2009). The article is discussing private web sites of scientists, blogs, and says:
"It's a blog world
Traditional journalists are increasingly looking to such sites to find story ideas (see 'Rise of the blogs'). At the same time, they rely heavily on the public-relations departments of scientific organizations."
How heavily? My experience shows that University of Toronto either threatens journalists or bribes them. For many years I am asking the press to report what is going on in the University of Toronto and in Canadian academia, but, so far, without success.

The on-line edition of Nature allows readers to post comments. Some readers talked about their own web sites and other web sites.
(http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090318/full/458274a.html).

I posted my comment and this is how it read (it stood there for 4 days, but it is no longer there):


I then received this email:


I really disagreed. While Nature has admitted that "the public-relations departments of scientific organizations" influence scientific journalism, why I cannot post a link to my web site that gives my views and the documents that I have? I posted a new comment, this time reminding that journalism must have independence and that journalists, as a matter of fact, do publish accusations all the time with various sorts of evidence (the final proof often comes much later). This comment only stood for some hours:

Science journalism often disregards the huge problem with research fraud in academia. In fact, the science reporters are unwilling to publish accusations even when the documents are presented. Of course, the press does publish accusations and it does publish the documents that are purported to prove the accusations. This is the time-honored tradition of open democratic press. Yet, it is different in science journalism. Example? See my web site ignored by science journalists at http://ca.geocities.com/UofTfraud/ There are over 50 documents (mostly scanned) on this site. Yet, some journals are even removing my comments containing the above link as link to the "unproven accusations". Is this a correct action or this is a blatant suppression of evidence? I believe the latter is true and it also makes the situation ridiculous: other journals (see The Scientist, http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53485/) have published my detailed comments containing the above link. These comments also contributed to the understanding of plagiarism, particularly to what I call "criminal plagiarism" when unpublished research of a PhD student is plagiarised by the supervisor. In these comments I have given a new definition of plagiarism that, in my view, deserves the attention of Nature readers as well. It is most disturbing that my "unproven accusations" about the Canadian academia are ignored by the media, while the situation in Canadian academia was in fact characterised in Canadian Medical Association Journal in these words: "It?s the classic Canadian response to a problem like scientific misconduct, says Toronto physician? scientist Dr. Paul Pencharz. "Deny, deny, deny. Sweep it under the carpet."

Posted by: Michael Pyshnov 23 Mar, 2009


This time I received an email from Mark Peplow, the editor of Nature. His email says that my comments are defective because I am posting "advertisements":


And then - the Nature editors really panicked. They sent a new email, my comment removed. No explanations!


I sent my answer to Mark Peplow, but it was useless.


Nature is blatantly lying.
They have read my web site from their computer (at Telford, United Kingdom, Macmillan Publishers Ltd) at least twice. They should know very well that my "unproven accusations" are proven beyond any doubt by the documents. They obviously took them as proven accusations and this is why they removed them. The editors gave me two different, in both cases - untenable and fantastic, reasons for removing my comments, and once - they did not give the reason. The real reason is that the editors lend support to the corrupt professors in the University of Toronto and they refuse to practice honest journalism. This is a blatant censorship supporting fraud and corruption in academia.