Here is a weekly digest of science integrity related articles. Also, check out Retraction Watch‘s Weekend Reads!Continue reading “Weekly Digest, June 1, 2019”
Just a quick post: Stephanie M. Lee, a science reporter at BuzzFeed posted an article today about the “YXQ-EQ” papers that I discussed on Twitter and in a recent post. It’s a nice story on the concerns that several scientists have about the invisible life force that might kill cancer cells – but that can only be emitted by one researcher.
“A Scientist Keeps Claiming His Life Force Can Somehow Kill Cancer Cells, And Researchers Are Calling Him Out” – Stephanie M. Lee – BuzzFeed – May 30, 2019Continue reading “BuzzFeed article about the “YXQ-EQ” papers”
In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I showed some examples of plagiarism and falsification in scientific papers, which the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) considers two of the three forms of Research Misconduct. Here, we will look at the third type of misconduct, fabrication. ORI defines fabrication as follows:
Continue reading “What is Research Misconduct? Part 3: Fabrication”
“Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.”Office of Research Integrity: Definition of Research Misconduct
In Part 1 of this series, I showed some examples of plagiarism in scientific papers, which the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) considers one of the three forms of Research Misconduct. Here, we will look at the second type of misconduct, falsification. ORI defines falsification as follows:
Continue reading “What is Research Misconduct? Part 2: Falsification”
“Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.”Office of Research Integrity: Definition of Research Misconduct
Let’s clarify that a bit more with some examples. In this blog post, I will discuss plagiarism.Continue reading “What is Research Misconduct? Part 1: Plagiarism”
This blog post is not intended to be an allegation of misconduct. I am just wondering about some unclarities and unexpected similarities in a set of papers. It is about studies showing the effect of space travel by putting volunteers on a tilted bed – or sending volunteers to the Utah desert.Continue reading “The Space Dentist”
A post illustrating how some companies choose to publish in low-impact journals that do not appear to apply rigorous peer review. The general audience cannot easily distinguish properly peer-reviewed papers from those that are accepted without much scrutiny. A paper that appears in one of these “easy” journals will not be seen by a large scientific audience, but can be used by a company to show that their product has been “peer reviewed”. This blog post is not intended to be an allegation of misconduct.Continue reading “It’s written in the scars”
This blog posts starts with a 2018 paper that shows us that “External Qi” can kill lung cancer cells, but that lacks an explanation on what it exactly is. Going back in time trying to detangle a hairball of references, we end up in 2004 with a paper in Brain Research that explains how a Chinese Qigong master famous in the 1980’s and 1990’s can kill cancer cells and make other cells grow by using a special Qigong technique.Continue reading “External Qi”
Thanks for joining me!
I am Elisabeth Bik, microbiome and science integrity consultant, and this blog will be my new place to talk about science integrity. There might be posts about how to report scientific papers of concern, image issues in biomedical papers, plagiarism, data detectives, conflict of interests, “predatory publishers” (not my term), and many other issues.
I got a PhD in Microbiology from the University of Utrecht in The Netherlands, and was a staff scientist at Stanford University, Scientific and Editorial Director at uBiome, and a Director of Science at Astarte Medical, all in California, USA.
In addition, I have been actively searching for image duplications in biomedical science papers, and I wrote several publications on this topic:
- Nature: https://www.nature.com/news/problematic-images-found-in-4-of-biomedical-papers-1.19802
- Science: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6377/730.full
- New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html
- Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/more-science-than-you-think-is-retracted-even-more-should-be/2018/12/26/dc14fa98-0950-11e9-a3f0-71c95106d96a_story.html
- Le Monde: https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/labos-petits-arrangements-science
- Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/19/one-in-25-papers-contains-inappropriately-duplicated-images-screen-finds/
Also check out my other blog, MicrobiomeDigest.com, which is currently run by a fantastic team of volunteers. Here, you will find (nearly) daily posts with the latests scientific papers on host-associated or environmental microbial communities.
Science builds upon science. Science should be open for self-correction.