5 ms·

Super fascinating. Do you have any links to this research?

cameldrv 3y ago
Her site is: https://scienceintegritydigest.com/about/ https://scienceintegritydigest.com/about/ https://scienceintegritydigest.com/ https://scienceintegritydigest.com/ She wrote an op-ed in the NYT last year: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/29/opinion/science-fraud-image-manipulation-photoshop.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/29/opinion/scien... She says her work has led to 938 papers being retracted. One of the interesting parts to me is that most of her work seems to be completely manual. She seems to have an eye for seeing photoshop on microscopy images or images of gels. The biggest method of fraud that she seems to find is researchers cutting and pasting from one image to another, for example, the scientist runs a gel but the results don't work out the way they hoped, so they paste in a line from another gel to make the experiment look like it worked. The uncomfortable part is that this is just one of many ways that you could fabricate or alter research results, and Dr. Bik is only one person finding it in her spare time. Probably a whole lot of fraud goes undetected.
- crtified 3y ago
  > One of the interesting parts to me is that most of her work seems to be completely manual. She seems to have an eye for seeing photoshop [...] Brings to mind the skills of the 'super recogniser'. Perhaps her manual work involves similar aptitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_recogniser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_recogniser -- Later edit: Indeed, the NYT article mentions - "Since childhood, I’ve been “blessed” with what I’m told is a better-than-average ability to spot repeating patterns. It’s a questionable blessing when you’re focused more on the floor tiles than on the person you’re supposed to talk to. However, this ability, combined with my — what some might call obsessive — personality, helped me when hunting duplications in scientific images by eye." - Elisabeth Bik
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    She also use a computer to double check her findings, from GP link: > Most duplications were confirmed by ImageTwin.
- chakintosh 3y ago
  What the hell!? This is insanity! > https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2023/06/27/concerns-about-12-md-anderson-cancer-centers-pathology-papers/#more-3243 https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2023/06/27/concerns-about...
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    It is. And should make you double think before you do the same photoshopping. They are watching us.
jashkenas 3y ago
She wrote a guest essay for us at NYT Opinion last fall, describing and showing examples of her investigative work: https://nyti.ms/43ti6y1 https://nyti.ms/43ti6y1 (Gift link, no paywall)
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  Here's one of any archived links; no paywall, can't be edited, and chokes out NYT's telemetry and metrics and such: https://archive.ph/hytwz https://archive.ph/hytwz
  - konschubert 3y ago
    The NYT needs to make money to pay its Journalists. After somebody who presumably works there posts a free link, you see the need to do this?
    - harry8 3y ago
      You can always justify behavior that causes someone else cost. Like the NYT with all their spyware? Both queries are reasonable ones to make. A spies by default without proper consent, B blocks by default without consent. Is this optimal? Can we do better?
      - konschubert 3y ago
        I recommend you don't read NYT articles if you don't want your IP to be logged.
        harry8 3y ago
        I recommend you put up convincing evidence that this is all that the NYT log about visitors because I don't believe that and it sounds a bit, well, glib to be honest. I don't read the nyt fwiw. Moreover I recommend you have a slightly closer look if you are really holding up the nyt as a bastion of ethical behavior. But at least they stand up for Assange and journalism not being criminalised while doing stenography for the powerful (amongst some decent real reporting, some now being criminalized, away from the front page), right? I'm sure they'll balance their reporting about wikileaks by quoting someone who doesn't actively hate them any day now. Anyway it should be noted that saying what you believe as you've done is the right thing and I endorse it even when defending the revenue a company that had $2.31 Billion on the books last year and has been a marker of inter-generational wealth and power for 170+ years to the family that owns it. I agree that what that looks like genuinely doesn't matter with regard to what you think is right in any ethical analysis. That goes unsaid too often imho.

Her site is: https://scienceintegritydigest.com/about/ https://scienceintegritydigest.com/about/ https://scienceintegritydigest.com/ https://scienceintegritydigest.com/ She wrote an op-ed in the NYT last year: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/29/opinion/science-fraud-image-manipulation-photoshop.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/29/opinion/scien... She says her work has led to 938 papers being retracted. One of the interesting parts to me is that most of her work seems to be completely manual. She seems to have an eye for seeing photoshop on microscopy images or images of gels. The biggest method of fraud that she seems to find is researchers cutting and pasting from one image to another, for example, the scientist runs a gel but the results don't work out the way they hoped, so they paste in a line from another gel to make the experiment look like it worked. The uncomfortable part is that this is just one of many ways that you could fabricate or alter research results, and Dr. Bik is only one person finding it in her spare time. Probably a whole lot of fraud goes undetected.

crtified 3y ago
> One of the interesting parts to me is that most of her work seems to be completely manual. She seems to have an eye for seeing photoshop [...] Brings to mind the skills of the 'super recogniser'. Perhaps her manual work involves similar aptitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_recogniser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_recogniser -- Later edit: Indeed, the NYT article mentions - "Since childhood, I’ve been “blessed” with what I’m told is a better-than-average ability to spot repeating patterns. It’s a questionable blessing when you’re focused more on the floor tiles than on the person you’re supposed to talk to. However, this ability, combined with my — what some might call obsessive — personality, helped me when hunting duplications in scientific images by eye." - Elisabeth Bik
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  She also use a computer to double check her findings, from GP link: > Most duplications were confirmed by ImageTwin.
chakintosh 3y ago
What the hell!? This is insanity! > https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2023/06/27/concerns-about-12-md-anderson-cancer-centers-pathology-papers/#more-3243 https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2023/06/27/concerns-about...
- nashashmi 3y ago
  It is. And should make you double think before you do the same photoshopping. They are watching us.

jashkenas 3y ago

She wrote a guest essay for us at NYT Opinion last fall, describing and showing examples of her investigative work: https://nyti.ms/43ti6y1 https://nyti.ms/43ti6y1 (Gift link, no paywall)

Phiwise_ 3y ago
Here's one of any archived links; no paywall, can't be edited, and chokes out NYT's telemetry and metrics and such: https://archive.ph/hytwz https://archive.ph/hytwz
- konschubert 3y ago
  The NYT needs to make money to pay its Journalists. After somebody who presumably works there posts a free link, you see the need to do this?
  - harry8 3y ago
    You can always justify behavior that causes someone else cost. Like the NYT with all their spyware? Both queries are reasonable ones to make. A spies by default without proper consent, B blocks by default without consent. Is this optimal? Can we do better?
    - konschubert 3y ago
      I recommend you don't read NYT articles if you don't want your IP to be logged.
      - harry8 3y ago
        I recommend you put up convincing evidence that this is all that the NYT log about visitors because I don't believe that and it sounds a bit, well, glib to be honest. I don't read the nyt fwiw. Moreover I recommend you have a slightly closer look if you are really holding up the nyt as a bastion of ethical behavior. But at least they stand up for Assange and journalism not being criminalised while doing stenography for the powerful (amongst some decent real reporting, some now being criminalized, away from the front page), right? I'm sure they'll balance their reporting about wikileaks by quoting someone who doesn't actively hate them any day now. Anyway it should be noted that saying what you believe as you've done is the right thing and I endorse it even when defending the revenue a company that had $2.31 Billion on the books last year and has been a marker of inter-generational wealth and power for 170+ years to the family that owns it. I agree that what that looks like genuinely doesn't matter with regard to what you think is right in any ethical analysis. That goes unsaid too often imho.