can we still trust science?

Can We Still Trust Science?

World Conference of Science JournalistsHelsinki

June 26, 2013

Ivan OranskyExecutive Editor, Reuters HealthCo-founder, Retraction Watch

http://retractionwatch.com@ivanoransky

Is This Science Today?

This is Transparency?

This is Transparency?

Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…

The Euphemisms

“unattributed overlap”

The Euphemisms

“unattributed overlap”an “approach”

The Euphemisms

“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already been

published”…by other authors

The Euphemisms

“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already been

published”…by other authors“significant originality issue”

The Euphemisms

“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already been

published”…by other authors“significant originality issue”“Some sentences…are directly taken from other

papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

How Often Are Studies Wrong?

How Often Are Studies Wrong?

Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124

We Are All Gatekeepers:hESCs in Cell

hESCs in Cell

“It does however have several examples of image reuse which might be of interest to PubPeer members and readers.”

hESCs in Cell

hESCs in Cell

hESCs in Cell

hESCs in Cell

A number of comments about these errors in articles and blogs have drawn connections to the speed of the peer review process for this paper.  Given the broad interest, importance, anticipated scrutiny of the claims of the paper and the preeminence of the reviewers, we have no reason to doubt the thoroughness or rigor of the review process.

hESCs in Cell

The comparatively rapid turnaround for this paper can be attributed to the fact that the reviewers graciously agreed to prioritize attention to reviewing this paper in a timely way. It is a misrepresentation to equate slow peer review with thoroughness or rigor or to use timely peer review as a justification for sloppiness in manuscript preparation.

Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up

http://www.labtimes.org

Blogs Get Aggressive

http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/

Blogs Get Aggressive

Blogs Get Aggressive

http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com

Blogs Get Aggressive

http://www.science-fraud.org/

Journals Are Listening

Journals Are Listening

Scientists Are Concerned, Too

Contact Info

ivan-oransky@erols.com

http://retractionwatch.com

@ivanoransky

Thanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health

Robert Lee Hotz, Wall Street Journal