4 ms·

The actual complaint filed shows pretty nasty behavior. Here's the full complaint: https://retractionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/filed-complaint.pdf https

The actual complaint filed shows pretty nasty behavior. Here's the full complaint: https://retractionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/filed-complaint.pdf https://retractionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/filed-co... Someone very clearly was trying to get Dr. Sarkar fired. The PubPeer comments are only one small aspect. But the person then also (I assume anonymously) emailed his new employer to allege fraud, and then went so far as to print out these allegations and stamped them with official looking nonsense about being from the an NIH investigation (which didn't exist), and distributed them throughout Sarkar's department mail boxes. The complaint makes a decent case for why they think pretty much all the negativity directed at this researcher is likely from one angry person. They obviously can't prove that multiple anonymous comments are from the same person, but reading the content it certainly seems likely. What is assumed to be the same person then took things way past the line of what most of us would consider ethical. There may very well be a place for anonymous calling out of potential research misconduct. But making fraud allegations anonymously online, then printing out those comments, trying to fake them to look like an official government inquiry, and physically delivering them to the researcher's boss at his place of work isn't the way to do that. This case might be one of those cases where the anonymity should be protected at all costs out of principle, but it's a really shitty case to wave your "we're the good guys" flag for.

tokenadult 12y ago
A complaint is just a pleading before any trial of the facts has occurred. The statements about what may have happened (or may not have happened) are under the heading "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS" in the document you kindly linked. So to describe the same issues you describe, I would write, "The actual complaint alleges some pretty nasty behavior." We have yet to see how many of those allegations will be believed by a trier of fact at trial. The plausible evidence of persistent research misconduct in this case seems to be a reasonable basis for someone not to get a new job with more research responsibilities, so there may not be any actual harm to the plaintiff here. The defense of truth is strong in a defamation case.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Not sure why this was downmodded, but I tried to correct that. I do note that people have a bias to believe the first story they hear and it's hard to consciously correct for this. Merely knowing about the bias is not enough to correct it and I realize that I'm not immune to it myself. As far as I know, I don't know any of the people involved in this, but I've read enough legal complaints to know that they're not always as factual as they first appear, so I try to consciously restrain myself from simply believing it without hearing the rebuttal. Rushing to judgement may be quite common these days, but it's not the sort of behavior fair or intelligent people should engage in. It's weird that they lead in with the first few comments, which were tame enough that I discount them completely as being an appropriate subject for a lawsuit, though they seem to get progressively worse and some of the later allegations are much more serious. I do wonder why they lead with their weakest cards, though. That aside, it does seem that the site it exercising editorial control over the comments, which may work against it with respect to the CDA, even though it's trying to do the right thing based on its policy as quoted in the complaint. Given the policy, I wonder how the later comments ever went through, as it seemed like the site wanted to avoid drama like this entirely. Even if this was a lapse of some kind, it might work against them. As I have not heard the rebuttal, I will refrain from making any judgements one way or another about who is right here. It's only fair, after all. EDIT: Retraction Watch is covering this case. I believe them to be a reliable, respected and neutral 3rd party: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/10/pubpeer-files-motion-dismiss-sarkar-defamation-case/ http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/10/pubpeer-files-motion-d...
tokenadult 12y ago
I am also not sure (as was a commenter in a reply) what was objectionable about my first reply to you, but now that I see that I can no longer edit that reply anyway, I should link here to what PubPeer says in reply to the plaintiff's motion to force disclosure of the name of the PubPeer commenter(s). http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.12.10-PubPeer-Motion-to-Quash-Brief.pdf http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.1... As an aside, I'll mention that the PubPeer lawyer is doing a much better job in filing pleadings, perhaps because PubPeer is a more above-board client, than Sarkar's lawyer is doing. Yeesh, what a mess the Sarkar complaint is. (Yes, I am a laywer, and I have read pleadings before and have a gut sense of which pleadings are convincing.) Note that the American Civil Liberties Union signed off as lawyers for PubPeer.
- dougmccune 12y ago
  The response from PubPeer's lawyer is certainly interesting, particularly the analysis of the images in question. But I wasn't trying to argue one way or the other about the actual merit of the accusations really. I was more pointing out that it seems fairly clear that someone, acting entirely anonymously, was set on getting this man fired. He did indeed lose a job (in fact two!), seemingly because of the efforts of this anonymous source, without any kind of formal inquiry or detailed analysis of misconduct. And the alleged actions of the anonymous attacker were entirely unprofessional and just plain shitty. Does the guy deserve to have his career destroyed? I have no idea, but trying to do so in such an underhanded mean-spirited way is just nasty. But this is academia after all...
- Natsu 12y ago
  I feel compelled to point out that it's not possible to downvote the people who reply to you. I'm certain that you don't intend to imply this, and I think most people here know this, but it does come up on occasion.
calhoun137 12y ago
You should read the last link in the article. The whole thing is a great read actually. But take a look especially at the results section that starts on page 22. It proves very convincingly that "for each of the 28 image-issues... evaluated, strong evidence supports the conclusion that the images are not authentic or contain other irregularities symptomatic of tampering": https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/krueger_affidavit.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/krueger_affi...
jakobegger 12y ago
Here's a link to the discussion of one of the related articles on pubpeer https://pubpeer.com/publications/8EB4592F23B61CC3EE7CF29A7522AF https://pubpeer.com/publications/8EB4592F23B61CC3EE7CF29A752... This is pretty factual discussion, and the fraud allegations are very convincing. Look at the pictures of the gels. (I don't understand why people use Photoshop to create fake images. You could create a fake gel in 30 minutes, make a real photo of it, and noone will ever be able to prove it.) If I made a discovery like this, I'd also get pissed. I'd probably also contact the employer of this person.

tokenadult 12y ago

A complaint is just a pleading before any trial of the facts has occurred. The statements about what may have happened (or may not have happened) are under the heading "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS" in the document you kindly linked. So to describe the same issues you describe, I would write, "The actual complaint alleges some pretty nasty behavior." We have yet to see how many of those allegations will be believed by a trier of fact at trial. The plausible evidence of persistent research misconduct in this case seems to be a reasonable basis for someone not to get a new job with more research responsibilities, so there may not be any actual harm to the plaintiff here. The defense of truth is strong in a defamation case.

Natsu 12y ago
Not sure why this was downmodded, but I tried to correct that. I do note that people have a bias to believe the first story they hear and it's hard to consciously correct for this. Merely knowing about the bias is not enough to correct it and I realize that I'm not immune to it myself. As far as I know, I don't know any of the people involved in this, but I've read enough legal complaints to know that they're not always as factual as they first appear, so I try to consciously restrain myself from simply believing it without hearing the rebuttal. Rushing to judgement may be quite common these days, but it's not the sort of behavior fair or intelligent people should engage in. It's weird that they lead in with the first few comments, which were tame enough that I discount them completely as being an appropriate subject for a lawsuit, though they seem to get progressively worse and some of the later allegations are much more serious. I do wonder why they lead with their weakest cards, though. That aside, it does seem that the site it exercising editorial control over the comments, which may work against it with respect to the CDA, even though it's trying to do the right thing based on its policy as quoted in the complaint. Given the policy, I wonder how the later comments ever went through, as it seemed like the site wanted to avoid drama like this entirely. Even if this was a lapse of some kind, it might work against them. As I have not heard the rebuttal, I will refrain from making any judgements one way or another about who is right here. It's only fair, after all. EDIT: Retraction Watch is covering this case. I believe them to be a reliable, respected and neutral 3rd party: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/10/pubpeer-files-motion-dismiss-sarkar-defamation-case/ http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/10/pubpeer-files-motion-d...

tokenadult 12y ago

I am also not sure (as was a commenter in a reply) what was objectionable about my first reply to you, but now that I see that I can no longer edit that reply anyway, I should link here to what PubPeer says in reply to the plaintiff's motion to force disclosure of the name of the PubPeer commenter(s). http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.12.10-PubPeer-Motion-to-Quash-Brief.pdf http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014.1... As an aside, I'll mention that the PubPeer lawyer is doing a much better job in filing pleadings, perhaps because PubPeer is a more above-board client, than Sarkar's lawyer is doing. Yeesh, what a mess the Sarkar complaint is. (Yes, I am a laywer, and I have read pleadings before and have a gut sense of which pleadings are convincing.) Note that the American Civil Liberties Union signed off as lawyers for PubPeer.

dougmccune 12y ago
The response from PubPeer's lawyer is certainly interesting, particularly the analysis of the images in question. But I wasn't trying to argue one way or the other about the actual merit of the accusations really. I was more pointing out that it seems fairly clear that someone, acting entirely anonymously, was set on getting this man fired. He did indeed lose a job (in fact two!), seemingly because of the efforts of this anonymous source, without any kind of formal inquiry or detailed analysis of misconduct. And the alleged actions of the anonymous attacker were entirely unprofessional and just plain shitty. Does the guy deserve to have his career destroyed? I have no idea, but trying to do so in such an underhanded mean-spirited way is just nasty. But this is academia after all...
Natsu 12y ago
I feel compelled to point out that it's not possible to downvote the people who reply to you. I'm certain that you don't intend to imply this, and I think most people here know this, but it does come up on occasion.

calhoun137 12y ago

You should read the last link in the article. The whole thing is a great read actually. But take a look especially at the results section that starts on page 22. It proves very convincingly that "for each of the 28 image-issues... evaluated, strong evidence supports the conclusion that the images are not authentic or contain other irregularities symptomatic of tampering": https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/krueger_affidavit.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/krueger_affi...

jakobegger 12y ago

Here's a link to the discussion of one of the related articles on pubpeer https://pubpeer.com/publications/8EB4592F23B61CC3EE7CF29A7522AF https://pubpeer.com/publications/8EB4592F23B61CC3EE7CF29A752... This is pretty factual discussion, and the fraud allegations are very convincing. Look at the pictures of the gels. (I don't understand why people use Photoshop to create fake images. You could create a fake gel in 30 minutes, make a real photo of it, and noone will ever be able to prove it.) If I made a discovery like this, I'd also get pissed. I'd probably also contact the employer of this person.