For Yet Better Science

In the age of generative AI, the "replication crisis,” and increasing pressure to “publish or perish” – amplified by growing social and political hostility to academia – the temptation to cut corners, look the other way, or otherwise sacrifice academic integrity to get ahead has never been stronger. Indeed, many scientists, journal editors, and publishers do, unfortunately, engage in unethical practices – as The Analytical Scientist has highlighted in recent years . However, there is another side to the coin – one less discussed, but no less damaging. In recent years, a new breed of self-appointed watchdogs has emerged online: anonymous collectives who use post-publication peer review platforms and social media to launch coordinated campaigns of criticism against researchers.  Some accusations may have merit. But often these campaigns are built on a foundation of institution and sheer volume – with real-world consequences: lost funding, mental health distress, and reputational har...

In 2015, the Retraction Watch leadership, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, retracted an article that they had written for The Lab Times in 2013. According to Marcus and Oransky, in the 2013 piece, they had offered “bad advice” to academics. In the 2013 piece, Marcus and Oransky suggested that when an error, actual or potential, was detected in a published paper, that they should first contact – by name or anonymously – the editor, then the author, and finally the research institute, following Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. They also recommended readers to copy Retraction Watch on their communications – most likely so that Retraction Watch could gather a scoop – suggesting even that by mentioning or copying Retraction Watch would twist the arm of the editor, and perhaps speed up – or influence – the journal’s action, or decision. Offering such bad, flawed and unscholarly advice, claiming boldly, without any citations, “that cronyism can protect obvious fraud”, the 2013 ...

Purpose Whistle-blowing, which has become an integral part of the post-publication peer-review movement, is being fortified by social media. Anonymous commenting on blogs as well as Tweets about suspicions of academic misconduct can spread quickly on social media sites like Twitter. The purpose of this paper is to examine two cases to expand the discussion about how complex post-publication peer review is and to contextualize the use of social media within this movement. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines a Twitter-based exchange between an established pseudonymous blogger and science critic, Neuroskeptic , and Elizabeth Wager, the former COPE Chair, within a wider discussion of the use of social media in post-publication peer review. The paper also discusses false claims made on Twitter by another science watchdog, Leonid Schneider. The policies of 15 publishers related to anonymous or pseudonymous whistle-blowing are examined. Findings Four issues in the Neuroskeptic –Wa...

You know someone is probably in deep sh*t if they flee the country. Jessica Richman and Zachary Apte, the married co-founders of fecal testing startup uBiome, were  charged back  in March in a 47-count  indictment  with defrauding investors and health insurance providers by falsely claiming their products were eligible for reimbursement. But rather than face the accusations, Richman and Apte have been fugitives hiding out in Germany, according to the U.S. government.

Dans une tribune publiée le 6 février 2024 sur FranceSoir, l’auteur Matt Nachtrab  interroge le rôle  d’Elisabeth Bik, consultante en intégrité scientifique,  dans les activités de la startup américaine uBiome , spécialisée dans l’analyse du microbiome. Bik a-t-elle  contribué à donner une crédibilité scientifique  aux fondateurs, Zachary Schulz Apte et Jessica Sunshine Richman, malgré leur manque d’expérience dans ce domaine ? Il apporte quelques réponses.

I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs). And his  pieces do come off with a bit of crankiness – reading them alone one would think that the scientific establishment is infested with data forgery, devised by scientists whose only wish is to publish in fancy journals at any cost. Schne...