Remember the time when scientific debates were open and public?
Maria’s comment on the 3rd point below (all in red… doesn’t it ring a bell?) is extremely marvelous.
Don’t miss the moment of the new proteins discovery when she will find them*).
Especially after she finds someone to process concocted by herself Excel files of >100Mb, 15 spreadsheets each…
which are… ta-dam! — a «new format» © Maria Lluch Senar
— hand-made copy-pastes from standard mass spec files which were already processed.
Then ask yourself a fair question:
Why the hell the standardized files from the machine had to be concocted by Maria’s hand before the analysis and processing into the DB?
Why she was so eager to make her own «new format» though being utterly illiterate in the subject of standardization and data formats for analysis/DB processing?
So when you seem to be involved into a quite probable scientific misconduct (the negligent data making up, actually sheer data manipulation!) by a person who repeatedly lies, spreads slander and intrigues behind someone’s back — think about that you may become a scapegoat at the end. Even if you only get stained — it’s still the shame.
Yes, it is awkward to read…
But much more shameful thing is to be cowed by a person who makes her move up to the position she holds by a very questionable way.
And to realize why this her way up is so questionable and shameful for a scientist: enough to see how she avoids open discussion and open exchange of the opinions. Enough to have it experienced — of how she’s been craving to fuck K.’s brain claiming to be alone with herself.
When a person, who repeatedly stresses you out, disrupts your work and utterly unable to openly and constructively discuss the project with all involved parties — it’s freaking disgusting when the very same person also claims to have you alone with herself: indeed just to fuck you (your brain actually but when your brain is violently fucked — it hurts unbearably).
P.S. in this email below K’ words are only those of black font
Above we can see the favorite Maria’s trip up, used repeatedly in her emails to K.:
«If you think that changing the pipeline to consider the new format is not possible please let us know and we will find the way to implement it».
She’s been absolutely unable to perceive any explanations why her undoubtedly genius idea just would not work: her ignorant obtrusion of the way how the data analysis (which is not her expertise at all) should be technically carried out just must be accepted with complete obedience no matter how feasible it is to perform at least partially. As soon as you start bringing her technical reasoning, however best you try keeping patience etc — she gets aggressive almost immediately throwing at you here-above quoted her favourite trip up.
Literally: «I am the one with the scientific authority here — you only must listen and follow! You cannot follow my genius ideas? — Shut up! Fired!!»
Yet another money laundry case under the brand of so called MycoSynVac project generously funded by ERC (European Research Council).
*) Sure she found them! Her patron has arranged the publication «Unraveling the hidden universe of small proteins in bacterial genomes» with extensively advertising campaign «Revealing the role of the mysterious small proteins» all over sci-comm media — how do you like the titles? remember the bad science list about Research Misconduct? — the role is not revealed actually: see the paper, its heuristic modelling attitude…
— why «arranged»? — because they published it in Molecular System Biology EMBO journal, Luis Serrano is fostered there, in EMBL, he has many connections, including his good friend Peer Bork (see Serrano’s lecture on Youtube about Mycoplasma where he mentions that).
And Peer is a senior editor in Mol Sys Biol.
No scrutiny guaranteed!
BTW, Serrano also publishes his papers in Cell Systems, where he’s himself in editorial board.
Cosy, isn’t it?
Also try to find and make work the «Open Access»™ code used in the paper and written for it — check it out how it’s easy to get it and how well it corresponds to the results, so loudly advertised!
The desktop version of Phobius was used to predict any signal peptides and transmembrane segments in our predicted SEPs using default settings and only differentiating between gram positives and negatives.
«Some software and our “RanSEPs: Comprehensive unbiased prediction of small proteins in bacterial genomes” used to predict any signal peptides in our predicted small proteins» 🙂
Find this «Comprehensive unbiased prediction».
Please, mind the Bad science which, of course doesn’t mean you should be biased.
Just check it out: and your guess is correct — it’s not on GitHub or any other public open repository with versions and dates.
Do you really think that those who lie so heavily and cheat at ease can do good science?
But, sure, they can publish their science! They have all facilities for that, don’t they?