@hansonmark.bsky.social
#NewPI interested in #immune #evolution, host #pathogen interactions, and #ScientificPublishing @ University of Exeter, UK. He/him. 🇨🇦
@hansonmark.bsky.socialI tend not to comment on US politics anymore... but this is treason. This is the clearest case of treason I've ever seen.
Grow a spine Senate and Congress, who supported the bill Trump just cancelled with rare bipartisan agreement, and impeach Trump.
@hansonmark.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialStriking citation manipulation in major cancer journals by @baptscc.bsky.social @jabyrnesci.bsky.social David Causeur and @aidybarnett.bsky.social; some with IF over 40.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Plots from Scancar et al.
Can also see this in Impact Inflation (bit.ly/StrainQSS, next posts).
1/4
@jabyrnesci.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialOnline by @baptscc.bsky.social @aidybarnett.bsky.social and David Causeur
Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals 🧪
#PaperMills that produce & sell manuscripts may be manipulating citations, but the extent of any manipulation is unknown. 1/5
www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10....
@carlbergstrom.comReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialI'm thrilled to share my first foray into nature writing. I describe my travels through Aotearoa New Zealand to see the country's rarest birds—and use this as a vehicle to tell the stories of the islands' evolutionary history and the bold conservation efforts that saved these creatures. Gift link
@hansonmark.bsky.socialYou can play with Impact Inflation data yourself in the tab from pagoba.shinyapps.io/strain_explo...
And directly get updated ratios by grabbing Cites/Doc and SJR from the Scimago Journal Rank website.
4/4
@hansonmark.bsky.socialCitation distortions (Scancar et al.) + IF & Imp.Inf (2025): Can Lett (11.8, 3.7)❗ J Exp Clin Can Res (14.3, 3.5)❗ Mol Can (42.2, 3.3) Oncogene (9.1, 3.2) Can Res (22.6, 2.6) Neoplasia (4.8, 2.3)⭐ Non-profits ex: DMM (3.6, 2.0)⭐ Science (47.3, 1.5)⭐ ⭐ = low cites distortion, low Imp.Inf 3/4
@hansonmark.bsky.socialEx. cite distortions (Scancar et al.) + IF & Imp.Inf (2021): Can Lett (9.8, 4.7)‼️ J Exp Clin Can Res (12.7, 4.9)‼️ Mol Can (41.4, 4.7)‼️ Neoplasia (6.2, 4.3)‼️ Oncogene (8.8, 3.8)❗ Can Res (13.3, 3.2) Non-profits ex: DMM (5.7, 2.8) Science (63.7, 1.0)⭐ ‼️ = high cites distortion, high Imp.Inf 2/4
@hansonmark.bsky.socialStriking citation manipulation in major cancer journals by @baptscc.bsky.social @jabyrnesci.bsky.social David Causeur and @aidybarnett.bsky.social; some with IF over 40.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Plots from Scancar et al.
Can also see this in Impact Inflation (bit.ly/StrainQSS, next posts).
1/4
@hansonmark.bsky.socialAh! Apologies, train internet... On bluesky we do have
@jabyrnesci.bsky.social, @aidybarnett.bsky.social, and @baptscc.bsky.social. Well done!
@hansonmark.bsky.socialYou can play with Impact Inflation data yourself in the tab from pagoba.shinyapps.io/strain_explo...
@hansonmark.bsky.socialCitation distortions (Scancar et al.) + IF & Imp.Inf (2025): Can Lett (11.8, 3.7)❗ J Exp Clin Can Res (14.3, 3.5)❗ Mol Can (42.2, 3.3) Oncogene (9.1, 3.2) Can Res (22.6, 2.6) Neoplasia (4.8, 2.3)⭐ Non-profits ex: DMM (3.6, 2.0)⭐ Science (47.3, 1.5)⭐ ⭐ = low cites distortion, low Imp.Inf 3/3
@hansonmark.bsky.socialEx. cite distortions (Scancar et al.) + IF & Imp.Inf (2021): Can Lett (9.8, 4.7)‼️ J Exp Clin Can Res (12.7, 4.9)‼️ Mol Can (41.4, 4.7)‼️ Neoplasia (6.2, 4.3)‼️ Oncogene (8.8, 3.8)❗ Can Res (13.3, 3.2) Non-profits ex: DMM (5.7, 2.8) Science (63.7, 1.0)⭐ ‼️ = high cites distortion, high Imp.Inf 2/3
@hansonmark.bsky.socialStriking citation manipulation patterns in major journals related to cancer. These are journals with IF reaching into the 40s in some cases.
Well done to authors.
Can see this in Impact Inflation also (from
bit.ly/StrainQSS). Charts next post.
1/3
@cahirokane.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.social4,882,378 vials shipped - that's a lot of science, and living proof of the value of model organism stock centres. Congratulations to all for your great contributions!
@lucksmith.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.social4 decades of stocks sent out by the @bdsc.bsky.social, nearly 5M vials!! countless crosses, experiments and knowledge generated from those flies. fun fact, like having a low area code is a cachet (eg 212), low digit BUN (Bloomington user number) IDs are a status symbol for some. my old lab was #40.🪰
@efsj-scijourno.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialMeanwhile, next door is a breakout session about the Peer Review Crisis #ECSJ2026 #wissenswerte
@apreger.eurosky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialGreat insights from the panelists including @hansonmark.bsky.social more authors, more papers (also per author), more need for thorough peer review. Work which is not paid. AI is both part of the problem & part of some solutions. Pros & cons also conc. open peer review… a lot of food for thought
@kspoon.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialAs a PhD student designing my first survey, I added what I thought was a throwaway question at the end. To my surprise, thousands of academics answered it! The paper is out today: doi.org/10.1093/pnas...
@katestarbird.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialY’all, I hate to rain on the dead bot parade, but the Yandex data center destruction doesn’t seem to have significantly impacted social media bots. I made temporal graphs of X posts about AfD around the time of the attack and there’s no sign of a sudden dip or residual impact on that conversation.
@deevybee.bsky.socialReposted by @hansonmark.bsky.socialgreat thread - some positive news🙂
