ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2025
A plea for academic decency.
Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- My plea for academic decency remains unchanged: a response to Lior Pachter.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an internet age when a viral sensationalist story gains far more traction than a nuanced and balanced discussion, we have become used to some politicians, media and web-based influencers bending the truth to create a misguided or distorted narrative that many people unquestioningly believe. This should never happen in science, but even here standards are sadly deteriorating. In my editorial I wish to expose this situation by highlighting the recent disturbing public attack on the scientific integrity of Australian neuroethologist Mandyam Srinivasan, an attack made by scientists outside Srinivasan's field. Srinivasan's integrity was first questioned in a preprint detailing serious allegations of scientific misconduct (that were subsequently shown to be unfounded). This was immediately followed by a concerted press and social media campaign that severely damaged his reputation. The goal of my Editorial is to use these events to encourage our readers to always be cautious in their judgements and to maintain standards of dignity, decency and respect in their treatment of their peers, even if they disagree with them, since this is the way science has always advanced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40514457What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.