Major academic fraud uncovered by ScienceGuardians highlights serious violations

An Entrapment Operation Exposes Fraudulent Practices

ScienceGuardians, an organization dedicated to empowering the academic community and defending academic integrity, has uncovered a disturbing case involving Reese Richardson, a postdoctoral researcher at Northwestern University and an active member of the "PubPeer Network Mob." Through a meticulously planned operation, ScienceGuardians successfully entrapped Richardson, designating him as "Perpetrator 6" in their ongoing investigation into fraudulent practices within academia. The allegations against him include serious legal and ethical violations, raising questions about researcher oversight and the integrity of academic systems.

The operation began when Richardson attempted to register on ScienceGuardians’ platform with two email addresses : a fake one (lawrence.richardson@u.northwestern.edu), using a legitimate email domain, which which he claimed belonged to "Larry Richardson, my grandmother’s cat." Following the advice of their legal team, ScienceGuardians approved the registration, allowing Richardson to further incriminate himself. Shortly after, he publicly confessed on Bluesky to using a fake identity to bypass verification protocols, a confession amplified by a retweet from "Perpetrator 5," another alleged member of the network.

Legal and Ethical Violations Brought to Light

The evidence gathered by ScienceGuardians reveals a series of illegal and unethical acts:

• Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA): Richardson used Northwestern’s email system to create a fraudulent alias, an act that could be considered an illegal computer abuse.
• Wire Fraud: Richardson employed electronic communications to deceive ScienceGuardians’ verification process.
• Identity Misrepresentation: Richardson created a false persona to infiltrate the platform.
• Violation of University Policies: The unauthorized use of Northwestern’s resources may breach the university’s academic and IT integrity policies.
• Manipulation of Academic Metrics: In a July 2024 blog post, Richardson admitted to generating 12 fake papers using Mathgen, creating 12 additional papers to cite them, fabricating an h-index of 12 (144 citations). These papers were uploaded to ResearchGate and Google Scholar, bypassing their verification systems.

These actions are part of a broader pattern of manipulation and harassment orchestrated by the PubPeer Network Mob, a group ScienceGuardians accuses of targeting researchers like Professor Jörg Rinklebe from University of Wuppertal,Germany whose more than 500 publications were attacked on PubPeer within a short period, almost entirely by a single anonymous account. Richardson himself is a prolific contributor on PubPeer, with 1,056 entries.

Severity of the Fraud: A Threat to Academic Integrity

The severity of this fraud is significant, both legally and ethically:

• Legal impact: Violations of the CFAA, wire fraud, and identity misrepresentation are federal offenses in the United States, carrying hefty fines and potential imprisonment. ScienceGuardians warned that future complicity could lead to charges of aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2), conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), or obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503). These allegations echo precedents, such as the 2021 conviction of a University of Texas professor for falsifying data in NIH grant applications.
• Academic impact: The manipulation of academic metrics undermines the credibility of platforms like ResearchGate and Google Scholar, which are critical for evaluating researchers. It also distorts funding and promotion processes, harming the broader scientific community. Ironically, Richardson works at Northwestern’s Amaral Lab, which focuses on researching fraud and reproducibility in science.
• Ethical impact: The actions of the PubPeer Network, of which Richardson is a member, constitute targeted harassment that threatens academic freedom. The case of Jörg Rinklebe, who was removed from Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list in 2023 for involvement in a "biochar ring," illustrates the devastating consequences of such campaigns.
• Inadequate media coverage: ScienceGuardians criticized a Science Magazine article published on July 31, 2024, for omitting Richardson’s legal violations, accusing the outlet’s journalistic ethics for downplaying the severity of his actions and potentially misleading the academic community.

Reactions and Controversies

The academic community is divided. Some, like @StanfordBeddoe, have downplayed Richardson’s actions, arguing that his intent to expose citation fraud justified his methods. ScienceGuardians firmly rejected this argument on April 28, 2025, emphasizing the illegality of his methods and the need to use proper legal channels. Others, such as @Behind_Retract, @caught_jus69935, and @VivienCBuckley, have called for a transparent investigation and legal action.

ScienceGuardians also pointed to Northwestern University’s inaction, accusing the institution of failing to take disciplinary measures thus far. They have called on federal agencies like the HHS Office of Research Integrity (HHS ORI), the NIH, and NDILnews to investigate the legal violations.

Perspective in the Context of ScienceGuardians’ Previous Investigations

This case builds on a broader series of revelations by ScienceGuardians regarding abuses on the PubPeer platform. In a recent article by France-Soir, ScienceGuardians had already exposed a scandal between April 11 and 14, 2025, involving an individual dubbed "Perpetrator 1," accused of posting and coordinating 35,000 fraudulent comments on PubPeer under pseudonyms like Actinopolyspora biskrensis and Hoya camphorifolia. These comments, which would have required 105,000 hours of work (equivalent to 24 years of full-time effort), were labeled as "deliberate fraud" by ScienceGuardians, who called for a criminal investigation by the FBI and SEC.

Another France-Soir article highlights controversies surrounding PubPeer since its inception in 2012. Originally designed to promote scientific transparency, PubPeer has been accused of becoming a tool for harassment and censorship. Researchers like Didier Raoult and Sabine Hazan have denounced "organized harassment" campaigns, with "copy-pasted" comments aimed at discrediting their work.

The Richardson case appears to be an extension of these systemic abuses. Like "Perpetrator 1," Richardson is accused of exploiting PubPeer’s anonymity, weaponizing it to manipulate academic systems and harass researchers, while his public confessions and illegal actions (such as identity misrepresentation) exacerbate the severity of his misconduct. These successive revelations underscore a structural problem in the oversight mechanisms of scientific integrity, where platforms like PubPeer, under the guise of transparency, can become tools for intimidation and fraud.

Upcoming Actions

ScienceGuardians has promised further revelations, including details about a complicit accomplice of Richardson, in an upcoming post. Here are the anticipated or likely actions:

• Northwestern Investigation: Lauran Qualkenbush, Senior Director of Research Integrity at Northwestern, is expectedto launch a formal investigation. Per university policy, such an investigation must begin within a month of receiving an allegation and could lead to sanctions like suspension or expulsion.
• Federal Investigation: Calls for an investigation by the HHS ORI, NIH, and NDILnews could lead to criminal charges if the CFAA and wire fraud violations are confirmed. This echoes ScienceGuardians’ earlier call for an FBI and SEC investigation into "Perpetrator 1."
• Science Magazine Correction: ScienceGuardians has demanded a correction to the July 31, 2024, article, which could prompt a public retraction or clarification from Science Magazine regarding their stance on legal violations.
• Legal Action Against the PubPeer Network: ScienceGuardians may file a lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as hinted in prior posts, to target the entire network—an approach also suggested in France-Soir investigations into PubPeer.
• Preventive Measures: Northwestern and other universities may need to strengthen its policies to prevent the misuse of its resources, such as .edu email addresses, and more closely monitor its researchers’ activities on platforms like PubPeer. More broadly, the revelations about PubPeer could push for platform reforms to curb abuses, a need emphasized by France-Soir.

In addition, legal action against the PubPeer Network—potentially through lawsuits filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to target the entire network—appears increasingly likely by parties committed to safeguarding the integrity of the academic community. This approach has also been raised in investigations by France-Soir into PubPeer’s activities.

Conclusion

The Reese Richardson case, exposed by ScienceGuardians, adds to a series of scandals shaking the credibility of PubPeer withing academic institutions. Echoing ScienceGuardians’ prior investigations and France-Soir’s reporting, it reveals systemic flaws that allow individuals like Richardson to manipulate academic metrics and harass researchers under the cover of anonymity. 

The severity of the legal and ethical violations, combined with Northwestern University’s initial inaction, underscores the urgent need for a robust response to safeguard the integrity of scientific research. As ScienceGuardians promises further revelations, the academic community awaits clear answers and concrete actions to restore trust in a system undermined by fraud and intimidation.

Contacted by France-Soir, Lauran Qualkenbush, ethics director at Northwestern university and its president were not available to answer our questions.