forbetterscience seems like a good idea, but the writing style, the images, and even the about page gave me pause on if this is a reliable site for trustworthy science commentary
Arxiv cared even less. They allowed the thief to DMCA strike me multiple times. He even managed to take down the real version of the paper by claiming that it was his: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04214
> Did you end up publishing your work eventually
No. When I tried to do so, I was actually rejected from a conference because their plagiarism detecting system labelled that I was trying to publish something that already been published (what was stolen).
It was very traumatic.
From the article, it seems the engagement came in the form of DMCA take-down requests from university lawyers... which the publication then largely ignored for a considerable period of time (possibly due to counter-DMCA).
In an unrelated scientific field, EE, I recently witnessed how the DMCA process could be used by an "engineer" to silence criticism of his hybrid vehicle battery "upgrades" [2] — similar to Australian company DCS's snafu/lawsuit [1].
Just disgusting, these vultures that know [how to steal/lie/obfuscate] just well-enough to be dangerous... including how to manipulate our DMCA system to their dishonest advantage.
[1] youtube.com/watch?v=_QNMVMlx48E&pp
[2] theautopian.com/toyota-prius-owners-can-soon-swap-tired-old-batteries-for-sodium-ion-cells-but-drama-rages/
We then contacted Stanford, and somehow got their legal team to message Arxiv telling them that Matthew is a fraudster.
In spite (!!) of Arxiv removing his stolen version thanks to Stanford's email: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14810
They refused to lift the obviously spurious DMCA claim on mine.