Can We Still Trust Science?World Conference of Science JournalistsHelsinkiJune 26, 2013Ivan OranskyExecutive Editor, Reute...
Is This Science Today?
This is Transparency?
This is Transparency?Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), thereason 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 beenpublished”…by other authors
The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“...
The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“...
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 imagereuse which might be of interest to PubPeermembers and readers.”hESCs in Cell
hESCs in Cell
hESCs in Cell
hESCs in CellA number of comments about these errors inarticles and blogs have drawn connections to thespeed of the peer r...
hESCs in CellThe comparatively rapid turnaround for this papercan be attributed to the fact that the reviewersgraciously a...
Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Uphttp://www.labtimes.org
Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/
Blogs Get Aggressive
Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com
Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://www.science-fraud.org/
Journals Are Listening
Journals Are Listening
Scientists Are Concerned, Too
Contact Infoivan-oransky@erols.comhttp://retractionwatch.com@ivanoranskyThanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters HealthRobert Lee Ho...
Can We Still Trust Science?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Can We Still Trust Science?

1,775 views

Published on

WCSJ 2013 presentation, Helsinki. Update of various presentations on scientific misconduct and retractions.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Can We Still Trust Science?

  1. 1. Can We Still Trust Science?World Conference of Science JournalistsHelsinkiJune 26, 2013Ivan OranskyExecutive Editor, Reuters HealthCo-founder, Retraction Watchhttp://retractionwatch.com@ivanoransky
  2. 2. Is This Science Today?
  3. 3. This is Transparency?
  4. 4. This is Transparency?Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), thereason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…
  5. 5. The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”
  6. 6. The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”
  7. 7. The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors
  8. 8. The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“significant originality issue”
  9. 9. The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“significant originality issue”“Some sentences…are directly taken from otherpapers, which could be viewed as a form ofplagiarism”
  10. 10. How Often Are Studies Wrong?
  11. 11. How Often Are Studies Wrong?Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124
  12. 12. We Are All Gatekeepers:hESCs in Cell
  13. 13. hESCs in Cell
  14. 14. “It does however have several examples of imagereuse which might be of interest to PubPeermembers and readers.”hESCs in Cell
  15. 15. hESCs in Cell
  16. 16. hESCs in Cell
  17. 17. hESCs in CellA number of comments about these errors inarticles and blogs have drawn connections to thespeed of the peer review process for this paper.Given the broad interest, importance, anticipatedscrutiny of the claims of the paper and thepreeminence of the reviewers, we have no reasonto doubt the thoroughness or rigor of the reviewprocess.
  18. 18. hESCs in CellThe comparatively rapid turnaround for this papercan be attributed to the fact that the reviewersgraciously agreed to prioritize attention to reviewingthis paper in a timely way. It is a misrepresentationto equate slow peer review with thoroughness orrigor or to use timely peer review as a justificationfor sloppiness in manuscript preparation.
  19. 19. Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Uphttp://www.labtimes.org
  20. 20. Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/
  21. 21. Blogs Get Aggressive
  22. 22. Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com
  23. 23. Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://www.science-fraud.org/
  24. 24. Journals Are Listening
  25. 25. Journals Are Listening
  26. 26. Scientists Are Concerned, Too
  27. 27. Contact Infoivan-oransky@erols.comhttp://retractionwatch.com@ivanoranskyThanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters HealthRobert Lee Hotz, Wall Street Journal

×