Polisstudenter lär sig akademiskt ordbajsande i stället för ett kortfattat, adekvat och korrekt skrivande, enligt debattören. polistidningen.se/2025/08/ge…

June News from IGDORE - mailchi.mp/b4ef699c967f/igdo… Read about Carl Salk who left the university system for freer research – and meet IGDORE Sweden's new Board Chair.

June News from IGDORE - mailchi.mp/b4ef699c967f/igdo… Read about Carl Salk who left the university system for freer research – and meet IGDORE Sweden's new Board Chair.

👉 The ReACT Project is funded by the European Commission, with no. 2024-1-RO01-KA220-HED-000250043. The primary goal of this project is to enhance the well-being and mental health of researchers by developing and implementing a web-based psychoeducational program.

Soon Wednesday, soon ReproducibiliTea and OSCoffee! 🥳 Journal club at 3:15pm and virtual coffee at 4pm CET! This week, we’re discussing the seminal article: Ioannidis (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” More info and sign up at: onscienceandacademia.org/t/i…

Soon Wednesday, soon ReproducibiliTea and OSCoffee! 🥳 Journal club at 3:15pm and virtual coffee at 4pm CET! This week, we’re discussing the seminal article: Ioannidis (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” More info and sign up at: onscienceandacademia.org/t/i…

For those unfamiliar with academic practices, blind review is a cornerstone of scholarly integrity. It ensures that reviewers can objectively evaluate a paper without being influenced by the identity of its authors, maintaining the fairness and impartiality of the process. By publicly posting their paper on social media while it was under consideration by a Canadian B-level journal, Trevor Tombe and Jennifer Winter crossed an important ethical line, one that many academics regard as sacrosanct. Such actions undermine the blind review process. Given the paper’s wide public availability, it is highly likely that current reviewers could now identify the authors, even if the journal itself does not explicitly prohibit such behaviour. The timing of this campaign is particularly revealing. The paper was made public on the same day our second paper was published in a top-tier journal. This suggests an intentional effort to amplify their work and influence its acceptance by mobilizing like-minded academics—such as Andrew Leach and Kent Fellows—to promote it online. Such behaviour is fundamentally unethical. It compromises the integrity of the peer-review process and blurs the line between scholarship and propaganda. Canadians deserve transparency in academic research, and they should know when these ethical boundaries are crossed. This isn’t just poor practice—it’s a violation of trust.