The X axes are a bit willful. Thanks to Eric Fauman, I did a double take. Can you see our ABC motifs here? 🙃

All sorts of gymnastics here: If you flip and squeeze the image, you can identify B and C easily. Curiously, the un-flipped black trace is the A. You need to have followed my content from yesterday to understand this gibberish here lol.

#59

#60 with ABC motifs

The 63rd paper with the ABC motifs has been cited for 72 times.

A small collection of three papers by Shaaban.

95 papers in less than 72 hours. The PDF and excel list can be downloaded from the link below. The PDF doesn't have much text, but the version for the publishers will have more descriptions. Thank you Russell Cox and many other supporters! drive.google.com/drive/folders/…

Flagging 95 papers in three days be like.....

And onto new search for funny squiggles doi.org/10.1007/s11082….

Same. doi.org/10.1007/s11082…

Saw this masterpiece in my backlog of "to be reported" files. Elsevier journals are no better than "predatory journals" sometimes is the conclusion.

Reported in February 2023. No actions. Detecting *F* is the LEAST time consuming part of the work. Chasing after and following up the EICs and getting stone-walled by them takes an obscene amount of time and tenacity.

Answer is "This is WAYYYYYYY easier than having kids (had none) and husbands (deleted 2). 🤣 I have a decadent amount of time and freedom 😉

These are convincing arguments! Elsevier has a more deceptive facade!

Another "booster report". I added the red drawing in D and double-sided arrows in A and D to indicate #manipulation. pubpeer.com/publications/5…

Reported this dup to Elsevier and Springer at the same time (February 2023). Took Springer only 3 months to retract. Elsevier, on the other hand, needs a "booster report".