ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2025
My plea for academic decency remains unchanged: a response to Lior Pachter.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Lior Pachter's response to my Editorial (Warrant in J Comp Physiol A https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-025-01745-6 , 2025)-which details the recent public attacks on the integrity of Australian neuroethologist Mandyam Srinivasan-does little more than accuse me of writing a long series of ad hominem attacks against him and Laura Luebbert. I find this accusation very difficult to reconcile with what I actually wrote, and I leave it to the readers of my Editorial to decide for themselves whether I am guilty of this or not. Regardless of this, Pachter fails to address, or refute, the reason I wrote my Editorial in the first place-namely, to decry the manner in which he and Luebbert raised their concerns about Srinivasan's work. Thus, the conclusion of my Editorial remains unaltered-Luebbert's and Pachter's unjust public assassination of Srinivasan's reputation falls vastly short of the standards of academic decency expected of a respectful scientific discourse between peers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.