5 ms·

What a curious article. - don't say "there is a concern the figure is wrong". Concern is not the salient point - correctness is. Is the data wrong or right? -

What a curious article. - don't say "there is a concern the figure is wrong". Concern is not the salient point - correctness is. Is the data wrong or right? - why are we focusing on the figures at all? Is the data correct but the figures don't represent? Or is the incorrect data correctly represented by the figures? This is a critical point left unaddressed

robertlagrant 4y ago
Agreed. Also "there is a concern the figure is wrong" is written in the passive voice, which is obfuscatory.
- tgv 4y ago
  That is not in the passive voice. Strunk and White really has done a lot of harm.
  - jepler 4y ago
    With a more conventional sentence structure, the sentence would have answered the question "_who_ is concerned that the figure is wrong?" I'm not enough of a language lawyer in English to say whether this is truly a passive-voice sentence in the most technical of senses, but I think the ancestor post was getting at a valid, er, concern about the writing.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      Call it the exonerative voice instead of thinking that everything mangled to avoid accusing somebody must be the passive voice. For bonus points, identify the use of the passive voice in the previous sentence--not every use of the passive is exonerative, just as you can be exonerative without using the passive.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
    Concerns have been voiced that a lot of harm has been done by Strunk and White.
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    Sure, you are right that this sentence is not a true passive voice. Instead, it implements the dummy subject [1] construction in English grammar, which shares certain qualities that leads to criticism of writing that uses a lot of the passive voice. E.g. There (dummy subject) <linking verb> <true subject> does not clearly imply who is criticizing what, and tends to diminish the magnitude or details of the nature of the criticism. I don't mean to defend Strunk and White any more than the next guy, but comments like this one make me think the pendulum can also swing back too far. If my pedantry annoys you, please feel free to disregard... I'm cringing at the realization that I just spent the last 5 minutes writing out this comment. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/dummy-subjects https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/...
    - fortran77 4y ago
      You cited "British" grammar. That's all well and fine for you people, but here we use American grammar.
      - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        The construction: “There is a concern…” is perfectly normal in either place. It’s not a dialect difference, I don’t even really understand how you can make this point, unless I’m misunderstanding.
    - tgv 4y ago
      But not mentioning the actor is what irked the commenters above me. The construction, on the other hand, doesn't matter. It can be done just as easily in an SVO sentence with a "real" agent: "Commenters raised concerns about ...". There, no information about the actor at all. But people like to add some technical detail to their argument, such as stating that the sentence is written in the passive voice, as if that proves their point. Strunk and White (and the countless people that mindlessly copied them) have made the passive voice the perfect candidate for this, to the point where it becomes an accusation, and any accusation of hiding agency is simply called "passive voice." But the analysis that the actor is missing is also shallow. In scientific communication, the actor often doesn't matter. It's the why, the how, the what a paper need to answer, not the who. The authors take responsibility for the (unconfirmed) fault. In that sense, there's little to critique about the passage, whereas the commenter makes it sound like a cover-up. If (s)he wants to know whose concerns they were, just say so, and state the reason, but don't hide it behind a (wrong) technicality. That just makes it look like the pot calling the kettle black.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Or rather, zero harm.
- guenthert 4y ago
  A lot of scientific communication reads very stilted. Keep in mind those are subject matter experts, not authors of prose or user manuals. Writing doesn't necessarily come easy to them and they might be inexperienced and insecure in it. Unlike many software engineers, researchers (at least in academia) rarely have access to a department of tech writers.
seibelj 4y ago
It is hard to reproduce the values returned by various instruments. Using modern technology and analytics tools it’s easier to check for fraud in the western blots, so this is where the fraud is often proven. The problem is that this is ipso facto fraud - you can’t say “ohhh I got mixed up and accidentally made an image that perfectly lined up with my conclusions”. If the authors were willing to fraud there then the entire paper should be seen as fraud and the authors responsible shamed because they are undermining the fundamental scientific process.
helsinkiandrew 4y ago
There is "Possible duplication of data between some of the figures". So some of the plots contain data from more that the column they're meant to be of. For example: Retraction: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2213288119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2213288119 Paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321510111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321510111 This could be a fundamental problem with the experiments that possibly could invalidate the conclusions or just a bug when creating figures for the paper. But if it was the latter surely a correction could be made fairly quickly - which suggests it's the former.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  Third possibility: they don't have the data on hand anymore to correct the figures with... It was a 2013 paper, after all. In their reaction statement they also provide a new citation which re-ran the experiments: "Confirmatory experimentation has now been performed and the results can be found in a preprint article posted on bioRxiv, ‘Homeostatic responses to hypoxia by the carotid body and adrenal medulla are based on mutual antagonism between HIF-1α and HIF-2α’"
mkl 4y ago
In many parts of medicine and biology, the data is the figure. The immunoblot assays described as problematic here ("possible duplication of data" in the retraction) are like that.
dahart 4y ago
“Concern” in this context is an Improper Noun of sorts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 It’s academic speak for ‘I believe this may be incorrect’, and it’s very common to use this word in reviews. The reason “concern” is used over “incorrect” is partly to avoid a direct accusation, which can and sometimes does turn out very bad for the accuser. Note that it was not Semenza who wrote about the “concern”. In addition this word can help establish lack of culpability by the journal and/or publisher after the fact.
- fartsucker69 4y ago
  according to rumors the usage was popularized by scientists working at CERN
  - selljamhere 4y ago
    And the rumor continues.
  - elashri 4y ago
    At CERN, I usually find people using this word more to describe q situation when something is not fully clear more than polite way to say wrong. Usually within the frame of particle physics where heavy statistical analysis is being used.
  - cromka 4y ago
    Not sure if sarcasm (conCERN) or real story?
- everybodyknows 4y ago
  The accuser it seems dared only to report under a pseudonym: > the pseudonymous Claire Francis began pointing out potential image duplications and other manipulations in Semenza’s work on PubPeer
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    The retraction affirms the claims so it doesn't need anyone's reputation to stand on. Small wonder if the person doesn't want to be known. Groups of people always value community over ethics, correctness, or any other virtue. There is little reason to photoshop the figures risking destruction of reputation unless deeper issues lurk. We are going to see more damning evidence as fast as people can dig through prior results.

robertlagrant 4y ago

Agreed. Also "there is a concern the figure is wrong" is written in the passive voice, which is obfuscatory.

tgv 4y ago
That is not in the passive voice. Strunk and White really has done a lot of harm.
- jepler 4y ago
  With a more conventional sentence structure, the sentence would have answered the question "_who_ is concerned that the figure is wrong?" I'm not enough of a language lawyer in English to say whether this is truly a passive-voice sentence in the most technical of senses, but I think the ancestor post was getting at a valid, er, concern about the writing.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    Call it the exonerative voice instead of thinking that everything mangled to avoid accusing somebody must be the passive voice. For bonus points, identify the use of the passive voice in the previous sentence--not every use of the passive is exonerative, just as you can be exonerative without using the passive.
- B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
  Concerns have been voiced that a lot of harm has been done by Strunk and White.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  Sure, you are right that this sentence is not a true passive voice. Instead, it implements the dummy subject [1] construction in English grammar, which shares certain qualities that leads to criticism of writing that uses a lot of the passive voice. E.g. There (dummy subject) <linking verb> <true subject> does not clearly imply who is criticizing what, and tends to diminish the magnitude or details of the nature of the criticism. I don't mean to defend Strunk and White any more than the next guy, but comments like this one make me think the pendulum can also swing back too far. If my pedantry annoys you, please feel free to disregard... I'm cringing at the realization that I just spent the last 5 minutes writing out this comment. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/dummy-subjects https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/...
  - fortran77 4y ago
    You cited "British" grammar. That's all well and fine for you people, but here we use American grammar.
    - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      The construction: “There is a concern…” is perfectly normal in either place. It’s not a dialect difference, I don’t even really understand how you can make this point, unless I’m misunderstanding.
  - tgv 4y ago
    But not mentioning the actor is what irked the commenters above me. The construction, on the other hand, doesn't matter. It can be done just as easily in an SVO sentence with a "real" agent: "Commenters raised concerns about ...". There, no information about the actor at all. But people like to add some technical detail to their argument, such as stating that the sentence is written in the passive voice, as if that proves their point. Strunk and White (and the countless people that mindlessly copied them) have made the passive voice the perfect candidate for this, to the point where it becomes an accusation, and any accusation of hiding agency is simply called "passive voice." But the analysis that the actor is missing is also shallow. In scientific communication, the actor often doesn't matter. It's the why, the how, the what a paper need to answer, not the who. The authors take responsibility for the (unconfirmed) fault. In that sense, there's little to critique about the passage, whereas the commenter makes it sound like a cover-up. If (s)he wants to know whose concerns they were, just say so, and state the reason, but don't hide it behind a (wrong) technicality. That just makes it look like the pot calling the kettle black.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Or rather, zero harm.
guenthert 4y ago
A lot of scientific communication reads very stilted. Keep in mind those are subject matter experts, not authors of prose or user manuals. Writing doesn't necessarily come easy to them and they might be inexperienced and insecure in it. Unlike many software engineers, researchers (at least in academia) rarely have access to a department of tech writers.

seibelj 4y ago

It is hard to reproduce the values returned by various instruments. Using modern technology and analytics tools it’s easier to check for fraud in the western blots, so this is where the fraud is often proven. The problem is that this is ipso facto fraud - you can’t say “ohhh I got mixed up and accidentally made an image that perfectly lined up with my conclusions”. If the authors were willing to fraud there then the entire paper should be seen as fraud and the authors responsible shamed because they are undermining the fundamental scientific process.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago

There is "Possible duplication of data between some of the figures". So some of the plots contain data from more that the column they're meant to be of. For example: Retraction: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2213288119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2213288119 Paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321510111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321510111 This could be a fundamental problem with the experiments that possibly could invalidate the conclusions or just a bug when creating figures for the paper. But if it was the latter surely a correction could be made fairly quickly - which suggests it's the former.

sdenton4 4y ago
Third possibility: they don't have the data on hand anymore to correct the figures with... It was a 2013 paper, after all. In their reaction statement they also provide a new citation which re-ran the experiments: "Confirmatory experimentation has now been performed and the results can be found in a preprint article posted on bioRxiv, ‘Homeostatic responses to hypoxia by the carotid body and adrenal medulla are based on mutual antagonism between HIF-1α and HIF-2α’"

mkl 4y ago

In many parts of medicine and biology, the data is the figure. The immunoblot assays described as problematic here ("possible duplication of data" in the retraction) are like that.

dahart 4y ago

“Concern” in this context is an Improper Noun of sorts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 It’s academic speak for ‘I believe this may be incorrect’, and it’s very common to use this word in reviews. The reason “concern” is used over “incorrect” is partly to avoid a direct accusation, which can and sometimes does turn out very bad for the accuser. Note that it was not Semenza who wrote about the “concern”. In addition this word can help establish lack of culpability by the journal and/or publisher after the fact.

fartsucker69 4y ago
according to rumors the usage was popularized by scientists working at CERN
- selljamhere 4y ago
  And the rumor continues.
- elashri 4y ago
  At CERN, I usually find people using this word more to describe q situation when something is not fully clear more than polite way to say wrong. Usually within the frame of particle physics where heavy statistical analysis is being used.
- cromka 4y ago
  Not sure if sarcasm (conCERN) or real story?
everybodyknows 4y ago
The accuser it seems dared only to report under a pseudonym: > the pseudonymous Claire Francis began pointing out potential image duplications and other manipulations in Semenza’s work on PubPeer
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  The retraction affirms the claims so it doesn't need anyone's reputation to stand on. Small wonder if the person doesn't want to be known. Groups of people always value community over ethics, correctness, or any other virtue. There is little reason to photoshop the figures risking destruction of reputation unless deeper issues lurk. We are going to see more damning evidence as fast as people can dig through prior results.