Who Watches the Watchers?
Anonymous “academic integrity watchdogs” are mounting coordinated online attacks on scientists of all stripes – with real and lasting consequences

A must-read article by @J_Strachan_Edit and Frank van Geel, published in The Analytical Scientist (@tAnaSci) on July 21, 2025.

Elias Verum contributed on behalf of ScienceGuardians™

Let`s sink in.

🧵 THREAD "In the age of generative AI, the replication crisis, and ‘publish or perish’ pressure—amplified by growing hostility to academia—the temptation to cut corners has never been stronger."

But there’s a less discussed, yet equally damaging threat:

“A new breed of self-appointed watchdogs has emerged… launching coordinated campaigns of criticism against researchers.”

Some accusations may hold water. But more often:

“These campaigns are built on a foundation of insinuation and sheer volume—with real-world consequences: lost funding, mental health distress, and reputational harm.”

It’s in this context that ScienceGuardians™ emerged. As Strachan and van Geel write:

“The anonymous group ScienceGuardians has emerged – not to shield misconduct, they say, but to protect the integrity of the scientific process itself.”

And their message is clear:

“Critique must be grounded in evidence, not ideology; and accountability must apply to all – including those who claim to be defending it.”

So who are they—and what are they exposing?

We recently had an exchange with a member of the academic community who has, on some occasions, contributed as a guest contributor to the derogatory blog operated by PubPeer Network Mob member Leonid Schneider. He expressed concern, asking why we were harassing his friend, Lonni Besançon, and whether he himself would be our next target.

We at ScienceGuardians™ believe the academic community deserves to know our standpoint in response to such inquiries. Therefore, we are responding to this query publicly, while protecting the identity of the individual who raised it as well as the remainder of the exchange that took place privately.

🧵 THREAD 🔱 All of the evidence ScienceGuardians™ has exposed consists of "self‑admissions" and "self‑implications" by the individuals involved. These are well archived and, at any time, can be verified by any unbiased third party. We have simply laid out the existing dots — it is up to each member of the academic community to connect them.

Follow on 𝕏: @SciGuardians

Exposing the Scale of Attacks on PubPeer by Two Key Perpetrators of the PubPeer Network

The first pie chart represents the total number of topics on PubPeer as of April 1, 2025, amounting to 218,069 topics. These comments include both valid scientific discussions and harmful, coordinated attacks on researchers.

The highlighted section (18.8%) represents the attacks made by two major perpetrators within the PubPeer mob, which accounts for a staggering 18.8% of the total comments in the history of the platform—showing the scale of their malicious activity.

The second pie chart breaks down the 18.8% further, showing the involvement of four accounts operated by these two perpetrators, targeting and defaming members of the scientific community.

These figures illustrate the extent of coordinated, malicious activity within academic discourse, undermining the integrity and safety of researchers.

Note:
In an attempt to restrict access amid our ongoing investigation, and although it is too late, PubPeer has limited access to its website starting from April 2025, now only displaying 10,000 records. However, you can still access the total number of comments on the platform until that date, as shown in the image, by using the following link: web.archive.org/web/2025000000….

📌 Please Note:
We have redacted the identities of the individuals behind these attacks to prevent further dissemination of their malicious activities. At ScienceGuardians, we believe that exposing and naming such individuals only feeds their desire for attention, potentially amplifying their harmful actions. Therefore, we focus on addressing the core issues to effectively combat fraud by empowering the academic and research community, and preventing fraud before it begins. This is achieved through our comprehensive training and practical, actionable guidelines—core missions of ScienceGuardians™.

⚖️Important Note: Our Commitment to Legal Cooperation

We recognize that many of these orchestrated attacks are well-funded by certain individuals and organizations, whose identities are known to us. These attacks aim to control various high-value domains, including the stock market—such as through enforcing the retraction of papers that serve as the basis for drug development or defaming their principal investigators. These efforts also target academic positions, particularly leadership and directorship roles at national levels, such as university and research institute presidencies. Additionally, they involve research grants and funds, all of which represent billions of dollars at stake.

In light of this, we are fully prepared to collaborate with legal authorities to address these fraudulent activities. This includes working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (@FBI @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino), the Securities and Exchange Commission (@secgov), the Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept @AGPamBondi), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (@FinCENnews).

We are committed to supporting these agencies in their efforts to investigate and prosecute fraudulent activities, ensuring accountability and the protection of both the scientific and financial communities.

🔔We call on academic publishers and their research integrity teams (including but not limited to @ElsevierConnect, @WileyGlobal, @SpringerNature, @WeAreTandF, @PLOS, @APSphysics, @AIP_Publishing, @CellCellPress, @aaas, @ScienceMagazine, @Nature, @RoySocChem, @ACSPublications, @Sage_Publishing, @FrontiersIn) to avoid engaging with or supporting malicious activities rooted in platforms with zero accountability—platforms that allow orchestrated attacks and defamation against members of the academic community. Specifically, we highlight PubPeer, which has become increasingly controlled by a small group of malicious individuals and organizations with motives far beyond science and research integrity.

These individuals use PubPeer to mask their attacks by indiscriminately targeting researchers, many of whom are collateral damage in this broader, malicious network. We urge publishers to refrain from referring to or entertaining these mobs, and instead, focus on protecting the integrity of the academic community.

⚠️The piece of the puzzle we are revealing in this thread is just one of many ScienceGuardians' legal and investigative team has uncovered. We will continue to monitor the situation and any activities from all stakeholders with the goal of ensuring the betterment and thriving of the academic community.

🔱 We invite all members of the scientific, research, and academic communities to join ScienceGuardians in our mission to uphold research integrity. By registering at scienceguardians.com, you can contribute to fostering transparency, accountability, and ethical standards in academic publishing and scientific discourse. Exposing Coordinated Attacks on the Scientific Community by Two Key Perpetrators of the PubPeer Network

This image highlights the association between two individuals responsible for orchestrating attacks on prominent researchers:

1. The perpetrator coordinating attacks on Dr. Sabine Hazan, who holds no scientific credentials and is a financial advisor, not a researcher or academic, yet he is commenting on some of the most sophisticated areas of medicine.

2. The perpetrator coordinating attacks on Professor Jörg Rinklebe from the University of Wuppertal (@Uni_Wuppertal), using the fraudulent anonymous account Desmococcus antarctica. This individual has targeted over 500 of Professor Rinklebe's published works on PubPeer, with over 100 records created in a single month alone (Read our previous post here: x.com/SciGuardians/s…).

To date, there have been hundreds of interactions between these accounts, engaging in coordinated efforts to target and defame members of the scientific community. Both accounts have repeatedly promoted and tagged PubPeer while leading their malicious efforts. These attacks often involve inflammatory language and slander, undermining the integrity of academic discourse and the safety of researchers.