The rat with the big balls and the enormous penis – how Frontiers published a paper with botched AI-generated images

A review article with some obviously fake and non-scientific illustrations created by Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the talk on X (Twitter) today.

The figures in the paper were generated by the AI tool Midjourney, which generated some pretty, but nonsensical, illustrations with unreadable text.

It appears that neither the editor nor the two peer reviewers looked at the figures at all. The paper was peer-reviewed within a couple of weeks and published two days ago.

Dear readers, today I present you: the rat with the enormous family jewels and the diƨlocttal stem ells.

Tweet by Dr. Houldcroft discussing Figure 1 from the paper. Source: https://twitter.com/DrCJ_Houldcroft/status/1758111493181108363
Continue reading “The rat with the big balls and the enormous penis – how Frontiers published a paper with botched AI-generated images”

Problems in Harvard Medical School studies include images taken from other researchers’ papers and vendor websites

Over the last week I’ve been analyzing a set of papers from a research group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which falls under the Harvard Medical School. The papers have the usual image problems we unfortunately encounter so often, such as duplicated photos of mice and overlapping Western blots.

But this set also includes a 2022 paper that appears to have copied/pasted several figure panels from other researchers and even from scientific vendors. Most of these problems were found with ImageTwin or reverse image searches.

Quick links [the spreadsheet and slide have been updated with an additional problem found on Feb 2, 2024]:

  • spreadsheet with the 28 29 papers found with PubPeer links [Excel file]
  • slide deck with the 58 59 image problems found in the 28 29 papers [PDF].
An image that appears to have been copied from a scientific seller’s website.
See: https://pubpeer.com/publications/FF5706E8826CB8D45481E942A679EE
Continue reading “Problems in Harvard Medical School studies include images taken from other researchers’ papers and vendor websites”

January 2024 news

Here is a summary of some recent news articles about problematic science papers and the tools used to detect them.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute problems

The main science integrity story in the past month concerned a set of ~50 papers from four research groups at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) found by molecular biologist Sholto David from Wales. He first blogged about the set on January 2nd in a guest post on Leonid Schneider’s For Better Science site. Using ImageTwin to scan scientific articles, he discovered image duplication problems in about 30 of these papers. His blog post also included issues with papers from the same researchers, previously flagged by other (anonymous) image sleuths on PubPeer.

This story was then reported by Veronica H. Paulus and Akshaya Ravi of the Harvard Crimson, a student-run newspaper, on January 12. A week later, Angus Chen and Jonathan Wosen reported on the case at STAT News.

Typically with such allegations, the institutions issue a standard reply saying they take breaches of scientific integrity very seriously, and that they will investigate – followed by months or years of silence. But this case was different. On January 22, just three weeks after David’s blog post came out, DFCI responded that they had already investigated most of the cases reported by David, and said that 6 papers would be retracted, and another 31 corrected.

Some other coverage of this story:

Stories about Sholto David

Related to the DFCI story above, several interviews focusing on the work and motivation of Sholto David have been published. Similar to the way in which many other science image-forensics detectives — including myself — work, Dr. David uses both his eyes and software (ImageTwin) to scan scientific papers for image problems. Here are some of the recent profiles:

Plagiarism in dissertations of high-profile persons

At the beginning of this month Dr. Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard University, resigned from her position after receiving criticism for how she and two other top-university presidents handled a Congress hearing about antisemitism on campus, and also for allegations of plagiarism in her PhD thesis. Most criticisms came from conservative people and news sites, turning plagiarism allegations into a political weapon against ‘wokism’ with undertones of racism (Dr. Gay is Black). 

Having said that, the plagiarism allegations were credible and real. And it seems fair to have the same standards for university presidents and professors as universities expect students to adhere to.

Business Insider then reported on a similar case of plagiarism in the Harvard dissertation of designer and artist Dr. Neri Oxman, the wife of billionaire Bill Ackman, who was one of the critics of Dr. Gay’s position. Ackman responded on X with some very long tweets basically arguing that the plagiarism of his wife was ‘good plagiarism’ and that of Dr. Gay ‘bad plagiarism’, without convincing me that there was any difference. Ackman was even threatening to sue Business Insider, adding to the emerging picture that science misconduct cases may no longer be investigated based on legitimate allegations of misconduct, but might instead be dismissed by rich people who can afford expensive lawyers to dismiss such allegations because of ‘defamation’. A worrying development that will not serve scientific integrity.

This week, Harvard’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston was also accused of plagiarism in her PhD thesis.

Additional coverage of this story:

Plagiarism in a professor’s PhD thesis as analyzed by SimTexter, https://people.f4.htw-berlin.de/~weberwu/simtexter/app.html

Some more articles of interest

A MAGIcal Special ERMPS Issue

The European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences continues to be a safe space for paper mills and very low-quality articles. Its special December issue (Supplement 6) is filled with 16 papers, all written by the same author, who appears to be using the journal as one big advertisement for his MAGI supplement-selling business. No conflicts of interest to declare!

Continue reading “A MAGIcal Special ERMPS Issue”

Investigation finds ‘egregious misconduct’ by CUNY scientist

In a report shared with Science in October 2023, a committee investigating allegations of misconduct by Dr. Hoau-Yan Wang, a professor at the City College of New York (CCNY, which falls under the City University of New York (CUNY)), found evidence that was ‘highly suggestive of deliberate scientific misconduct’. Dr. Wang has been a frequent collaborator with Cassava Sciences (Nasdaq: SAVA), a biotech company working on a drug called simufilam for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Unfortunately, Dr. Wang was unable to provide the committee with any original data or notebooks that could have addressed concerns about his work. Although the suspicions of manipulated images could therefore not be proved, the investigation revealed “long-standing and egregious misconduct in data management and record keeping by Dr. Wang”.

Continue reading “Investigation finds ‘egregious misconduct’ by CUNY scientist”

Two Marseille IHUMI/AMU papers retracted by Scientific Reports

Yesterday, October 30, 2023, Scientific Reports retracted two papers from the group of Didier Raoult. Both papers described studies in which stool samples were taken from malnourished children in African countries, and both were retracted because of the lack of ethical approval from these countries to obtain samples.

Continue reading “Two Marseille IHUMI/AMU papers retracted by Scientific Reports”

Hindawi’s mass retraction of “Special Issues” papers

Hindawi — and its parent company, Wiley — have recently announced that they will retract hundreds of papers from journals targeted by paper mills. The papers were all published in ‘special issues’, with the guest editors being either asleep at the wheel or perhaps knowingly looking the other way.

In this blog post, I will take an in-depth look at some of these papers.

Continue reading “Hindawi’s mass retraction of “Special Issues” papers”

Concerns about 12 MD Anderson Cancer Center’s Pathology Papers

As I was doing a reverse-image search online on a set of papers, I saw an unrelated photo of a skin biopsy that appeared to contain repetitive areas. Even in the small Google Image Search thumbnail it was clear to me that something unexpected was going on in this image.

The discovery led me to a set of 12 papers from a research group at the Hematopathology Department of the Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, all with histopathology photos showing unexpected repetitive structures.

Source: Diverse landscape of dermatologic toxicities from small‐molecule inhibitor cancer therapy, DOI 10.1111/cup.14145. Can you spot the repetitive patterns?
Continue reading “Concerns about 12 MD Anderson Cancer Center’s Pathology Papers”

Problematic Papers from Zhejiang University

This post describes a set of over 20 papers with mostly image problems from the Department of Pharmacology at the School of Medicine of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. All papers have Professor Ximei Wu as the common – and often corresponding – author. The Wu lab conducts research on stem cell and bone development, and their papers contain many images of Western blots and immunohistochemistry experiments.

Continue reading “Problematic Papers from Zhejiang University”

The Iranian Plant Paper Mill

Previously I wrote about the Tadpole Paper Mill and the Stockphoto Paper Mill papers. Paper Mills are companies that sell fake or plagiarized scientific papers to authors who need them for their career. Certain countries have strict requirements or monetary incentives for medical doctors, graduate students, or other researchers to publish papers. In such countries, other researchers or business folks have found creative ways of making money by selling fake papers to researchers. Such paper mills are similar to essay mills where ghostwriters offer their services to undergraduate students.

Paper mill papers sometimes can be recognized because they are written based on templates or by recycling the same photos. A particular set of papers might contain the same remarkable typo, western blots with the same background, similar title structures, the same erroneous gene sequence, unrealistic flow cytometry plots, or recycled electron microscopy photos.

Other paper mills operate by working together with journal editors responsible for ‘special issues’ who will review and accept low-quality submissions where authors have been added for payment.

Countless hours have been put into finding such linked sets of papers by volunteers such as Smut Clyde, Tiger, Jennifer Byrne, Jana Christopher, and Anna Abalkina. Here, we will look at a slightly different paper mill.

Continue reading “The Iranian Plant Paper Mill”