Elisabeth Bik Profile picture
Jun 1 9 tweets 4 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Here is an example of a paper with some very serious problems, where it appears the journal @CellStemCell took a very long time to retract: more than 7 years.
HT: @SmutClyde
sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Image
Issues with figures from this and three other papers from the same first author have been reported on @PubPeer in November 2015.
pubpeer.com/publications/A…
and e.g.: pubpeer.com/publications/3… Image
The retraction notice states that 'The Regenerative Research Foundation conducted an investigation following its policies and the NIH Office of Research Integrity guidelines and determined that there had been image manipulation in these figures'.
But there is a 7-year old (March 2016) New York Post article that already mentions that the first author 'was placed on administrative leave last month while a foundation that oversees the Neuro Stem Cell Institute investigates'
nypost.com/2016/03/07/sci…
It is not clear whether the foundation's investigation took 7 years to complete, or if the journal took so long to retract. The retraction notice appears to be deliberately vague about the time line.
The retraction notice also states it is the *authors* requesting retraction. Why didn't the journal make that decision?
Wouldn't that be similar to only giving a fine to people who admitted they were driving under the influence?
If the evidence is there, don't wait for authors.
Here are things that scientific publishers could do better:
1. If evidence is clear, put an immediate Expression of Concern on the paper
2. Retract within a year after first problems are noted
...
#SSP2023
3. More transparency in retraction notices about time interval between first allegations, conclusion of institutional investigation, to retraction.
4. Do not always wait for authors or institutions to agree. If evidence is clear, retract.
#SSP2023
I'd like to point out (again) this Editorial by @hholdenthorp:
Problems with papers can be addressed quickly by e.g. retraction. Institutional investigations can take years. Often, these can be two different parallel processes, not sequential.
#SSP2023
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Elisabeth Bik

Elisabeth Bik Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MicrobiomDigest

Jun 1
Next up #SSP2023
Research Integrity: Stories of learning from overcoming mass retractions, systematic manipulation and research misconduct.
Hannah Smith @WileyGlobal
Yael Fitzpatrick @GazelleInDminor @PNASNews
Luigi Longobardi @LuigiLon @IEEEorg
Mike Streeter @WileyGlobal Image
The panelists all introduce themselves - they now work in research integrity at a publisher, but started in very different careers. It is a relatively new type of career, and often started with a volunteer role in ethics.
#SSP2023
Each panelist will talk about their current job and how they deal with certain cases.
YF: The right thing to do is not always the easiest or most pleasant thing to do. Our journal suspected misconduct and rejected a manuscript, and we reported it to the institution.
#SSP2023
Read 14 tweets
Jun 1
After the coffee, I will attend one of the parallel sessions: Charleston Trendspotting: Forecasting the Future of Trust and Transparency.
With Leah Hinds @chsconf and @lisalibrarian and a "Future's Wheel"
#SSP2023
(I am a bit nervous about what a Futures Wheel is and the pieces of paper and markers on some of the tables - if this is too interactive or too buzzwordy, I might run to the nearest #introvert corner).
#SSP2023
Futures Wheel: there is an event/trend in the middle, some direct effects around it, secondary effects a bit further out, etc. Effects can be positive/negative. The further out, the harder it is to predict them. Effects can occur multiple times.
#SSP2023
mindtools.com/a3w9aym/the-fu… Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 1
Good morning from Portland, OR, from the #SSP2023 @ScholarlyPub, where I will attend the plenary session "The Evolving Knowledge Ecosystem" about the economic pressures and the greatest challenges shaping the scholarly publishing industry.
This will be a panel discussion, with @rschon @IthakaSR, @amy_brand @mitpress, Gregg Gordon @SSRN, Julia Kostova @FrontiersIn, and @DrNandiQ @Clarivate
#SSP2023 Image
Roger Schonfeld @rschon will be moderating this panel, and opens the discussion with asking what the purpose of scholarly publishing is or should be.
@amy_brand : we not only deliver research contents but we are really integral to the academic ecosystem.
Read 13 tweets
May 29
French medical bodies on Sunday called on authorities to punish researcher Didier Raoult for "the largest 'unauthorised' clinical trial ever seen" into the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 france24.com/en/europe/2023…
You can find the preprint here: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
I started a @PubPeer comment thread here:
pubpeer.com/publications/4…
and I invite everyone to join the discussion there.
The tweet at the start of this thread has resulted in a lot of discussion and critique, so if you have something valid to say, I encourage you to comment on the preprint on @PubPeer:
pubpeer.com/publications/4…
Read 9 tweets
Apr 27
One of these papers is from the Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine and @UnivOfKansas.
Together with earlier retractions from this group of authors, it raises severe concerns about this @NIEHS and Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province-sponsored research.
As pointed out by @bsPyt7dmnBKaebN, this 2020 paper shares several figures with a 2014 and a 2020 paper from two different group of researchers.
Here are Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the three papers compared. Blots and plots look identical.
pubpeer.com/publications/D… ImageImageImageImage
Several other figures appear to have been copied from two other papers, again from different researchers.
There appears to be almost no original data in this paper. ImageImage
Read 4 tweets
Apr 25
Stanford president dodges research misconduct questions
Amid Tessier-Lavigne’s defense, unanswered questions and contradictory statements
@tab_delete writes @StanfordDaily
'He has canceled public appearances, demanded retraction of The Daily’s reporting through his lawyers, deactivated the website for his public office hours and declined to respond to dozens of inquiries.'
'When he has commented on the allegations surrounding his work, Tessier-Lavigne has routinely provided accounts that contradict publicly available information.'
Great investigation by Polk-award-winner @tab_delete
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(