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
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.
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
Posted by: Michael Pyshnov 23 Mar,
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.