Oh I agree! I actually have another comment in this thread where I said I think that more people are excited about uncovering fraudulent work than ever before imo.
in academia, crimes against scientific integrity are considered particularly heinous. The dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious violations are members of an elite squad known as the Ph.D students. These are their stories.
It’s grim, especially when considering the real human cost that fraud in biomedical research has. Despite this, like you, I am also optimistic. This article outlines some of how the initial concerns about this researcher was raised, and how the analysis of his work was done. A lot of it seems pretty unorthodox. For example, one of the people who contributed to this work was a “non-scientist” forensic image expert, who goes by the username Cheshire on the forum PubPeer (his real name is known and mentioned in the article, but I can’t remember it).
I’m optimistic. I think we’re at the beginning of the self-correction stage of the reproducibility crisis.
It’s not the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. But it could very well be the end of the beginning.
Oh I agree! I actually have another comment in this thread where I said I think that more people are excited about uncovering fraudulent work than ever before imo.
in academia, crimes against scientific integrity are considered particularly heinous. The dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious violations are members of an elite squad known as the Ph.D students. These are their stories.
Something about potential wide scale fraud came out recently about a prominent Alzheimer’s researcher. This article covers it quite well: https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion
It’s grim, especially when considering the real human cost that fraud in biomedical research has. Despite this, like you, I am also optimistic. This article outlines some of how the initial concerns about this researcher was raised, and how the analysis of his work was done. A lot of it seems pretty unorthodox. For example, one of the people who contributed to this work was a “non-scientist” forensic image expert, who goes by the username Cheshire on the forum PubPeer (his real name is known and mentioned in the article, but I can’t remember it).
nice one! ;D