• brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    10 months ago

    California microbiologist Elisabeth Bik, 57, has been sleuthing for a decade. Based on her work, scientific journals have retracted 1,133 articles, corrected 1,017 others and printed 153 expressions of concern…

    Incredible, she has some enemies.

  • Lung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hahah what a hobby, using image processing and probably AI to check old papers that predated the tools. Kinda like using DNA to solve old crimes

  • bl4kers@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why do articles like this feel the need to include the blogger’s age?

  • stravanasu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Really embarrassing also for the journals that published the papers – and which are as guilty. They take ridiculously massive amounts of money to publish articles (publication cost for one article easily surpasses the cost of a high-end business laptop), and they don’t even check them properly?

    • Akagigahara@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why would they? They get the money. I feel like that system is just prime corruption/malpractice and leads to crap like this.

      It’s for profit all the way through

    • moitoi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You have a lot of shit in the journals. I read about autism for example. I can’t count how many article with restrain and basic human right abuse are published. And, it continues in 2024.

      It’s seriously depressing to see this BS and other pseudo-scientific text published.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      Oh, they don’t pay the peer reviewers. That would cut their profit margins waaaay too much.

    • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why would they check them properly? These are for profit organizations. Their only job is to generate profit, not check articles for errors. The Lancet Journal is owned by a 20 billion dollar corporation.

  • Haagel@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s really embarrassing, but not surprising that a medical institution would lie and cheat. The profit motive is destroying scientific research.

  • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you find this interesting, the Freakonomics podcast just put out a really good series on academic fraud. I highly recommend it.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a Harvard Medical School affiliate, announced Jan. 22 it’s requesting retractions and corrections of scientific papers after a British blogger flagged problems in early January.

    They use special software, oversize computer monitors and their eagle eyes to find flipped, duplicated and stretched images, along with potential plagiarism.

    In a Jan. 2 blog post, Sholto David presented suspicious images from more than 30 published papers by four Dana-Farber scientists, including CEO Laurie Glimcher and COO William Hahn.

    The blog post included problems spotted by David and others previously exposed by sleuths on PubPeer, a site that allows anonymous comments on scientific papers.

    Technology has made it easier to root out image manipulation and plagiarism, said Ivan Oransky, who teaches medical journalism at New York University and co-founded the Retraction Watch blog.

    Some may intentionally falsify data, knowing that the process of peer review — when a journal sends a manuscript to experts for comments — is unlikely to catch fakery.


    The original article contains 792 words, the summary contains 158 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      Blogs are a good idea. We should go back to them instead of being dependent on social media.

      • force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        no god please, i hate googling something and the first 12 results are all blogs that take forever to get to the point and then give a bad answer

        i don’t think i could live any longer if i didn’t have “site:reddit.com” or “site:stackexchange.com” etc. to filter out most of the garbage

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          i hate googling something and the first 12 results are all blogs that take forever to get to the point and then give a bad answer

          That’s because mass-produced/AI generated shit “content” has been winning the Search Engine Optimization cat and mouse game for a while now.

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I hope so because I am working on 2 of them. One for a dumb minecraft mod pack I am building and the other a mix mash of science topics ranging from tutoring resources, commentary on current events in science and on how science is reported in media.