Important Comments on the Article "On Culture and Barbarism"

Many comments from the scientific community have been received following the initial publication of the article "On Culture and Barbarism" on the website https://false-science.ucoz.ua/.

Most of them were positive, but some were critical and raised important questions. These questions, arising from a lack of information, have been grouped into two themes, and I will now attempt to address them.

  

Comment 1: Why doesn’t the author publish his own scientific article based on the same materials? It’s unclear what more he wants since the university has stated that the article has already been retracted.

Response:  The university is engaging in manipulation—acting in collusion with the journal’s editor-in-chief, who happens to be Danyliuk’s close associate. Removing the article from the journal’s table of contents does not mean it has been retracted. It have merely been erased from the contents.  

Ultimately, if someone wants to cite the article, they won’t go digging through the website of that obscurely named journal to check if it’s officially there. They will grab the first available PDF they find online and start citing it.  

There is a great concept in science: integrity. Many definition exists, for example: “Scientific integrity is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity”. 

Science is a unique form of human activity that deals with truth and the generation of knowledge. Plagiarists and fraudsters undermine this integrity, turning science into a corrupt marketplace. Scientists should not be left guessing: Is this article retracted or not? I cannot personally approach everyone who intends to cite it and say, Look, here’s a letter from the university stating that Danyliuk has retracted the article. That would be ridiculous.  

A scientific publication marks the emergence of knowledge into the world. Knowledge is born through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This is the standard established by the scientific community. Therefore, the only legitimate way to correct an error (if a publication turns out to be flawed) is to publish a retraction notice in the same journal. There is no need to even remove the article from the table of contents, creating an inexplicable gap in the page numbering. It is enough to modify the PDF file, clearly marking the article as retracted. That is how science operates.  

Until such a formal retraction notice is published, I cannot proceed with publishing my own research results. Doing otherwise would be disrespectful to other scientists and a violation of scientific integrity.  I have no moral right to do that.  

As for the thieves, fraudsters, and manipulators in science—let them have no doubt: I will fight against their schemes for as long as necessary. If required, I am willing to sacrifice my life—if that’s the only way to make them understand.  The retraction notice will be published in that disgraceful journal, or the journal will shut down and finally end up where it truly belongs—in the trash.

Comment 2. A thesis is not something serious. All students plagiarize their theses (sic! – this is a direct quote from a Facebook post). This student should be grateful that the professors babysat him and allowed him to graduate.

Response. Then what is the point of education if everyone plagiarizes? Students plagiarize from professors, professors plagiarize from each other and from students? My goal was to create an interesting and valuable scientific work in the field of ethnic psychology. Deep down, I secretly dreamed of later conducting research at the intersection of biology and psychology—perhaps even developing it into a doctoral dissertation.  

When I enrolled in the Institute of Continuing Education (ICE) in 2015, I was already an established scientist—a PhD in biological sciences with experience working in both domestic and international research institutions since 2000. I have no one to be grateful to at ICE, except for a few professors who genuinely did their best to pass on knowledge to students. Everyone else was merely fulfilling their time as a burdensome duty. 

I came up with the topic for my research on my own. First, I wrote a term paper on it, then expanded it into a thesis. My research, approaches, and methods were new to Ukraine. The thesis contained an enormous amount of statistical material—the statistical calculations alone took about six months. I gathered fascinating ethnopsychological data from a massive sample of 500 respondents from all regions of Ukraine. No one helped me. No one guided me in the right direction. We simply don’t have specialists in experimental ethnic psychology.  

My supervisor read the finished work in an hour and sent back comments—about changing long dashes to short ones in the bibliography. The reviewers refused to read the thesis and demanded that I bring them a pre-written review for them to sign. During the defense, not a single member of the commission turned their head toward the screen with my presentation (I had even bought a powerful laser pointer specifically for it)—they just chatted among themselves and lazily shuffled papers on the table.  

Other theses were based on samples of just 20–30 people and, at best, used a single statistical method for evaluation (e.g., Student’s t-test). Despite this, they received exceptionally high scores—but that’s another story because ICE is often attended by relatives of highly influential officials (some were even in my group), so influential that supervisors would write their theses for them...  

My thesis only needed a bit of refinement, and it could have been a completed PhD dissertation. I believe it was 90% ready. Most dissertations that get defended are just as pathetic as undergraduate theses—just slightly more academic-looking and filled with more verbal garbage from various freeloaders, such as opponents and reviewers.  

Why should I be grateful to ICE? I was disgusted to hold their diploma in my hands after seeing Danilyuk’s plagiarism. I had bouts of nausea. I burned that diploma issued by thieves. They can revoke it if they want—I don’t need that garbage from fraudsters. I will never use that diploma in my life. I have never introduced myself as a "psychologist," and I never will.  

But my work is my work. Only I have the right to decide what to do with my research—whether to publish it or not, whether to refine it or not. I worked on it for years, and they stole my labor. And I will never forgive them for that.