Sleuths flag ‘complete mismatch’ in data of BMJ stem cell study | Manoj Lalu

This is disappointing, but I’m not surprised. I was one of the reviewers for the initial version. You can see by my review (it’s all open) that I flagged primary outcome switching, a complete lack of any data on the cells themselves, and sample size inconsistencies in the protocol versus the report (and within the report). The data seemed impressive. Too good to be true I guess? I never saw the paper again in peer review after that initial review. The next notification I received was that the paper was accepted. Given BMJ’s commitment to open peer review and post-publication scrutiny (which I admire), I have no doubt we will hear about a formal editorial investigation soon.

Andrew Porter (@retropz.bsky.social)

Research Integrity and Training Adviser at the Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute Interested in improving #ResearchIntegrity & #ResearchCulture with training, #TeamScience & promoting #OpenResearch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3353-7002

So maybe now we can agree that having an unchecked research integrity militia who unfortunately has the ear of the press and increasingly that of the the publishers, but who fiercely rejects any… | Ioana A. Cristea

So maybe now we can agree that having an unchecked research integrity militia who unfortunately has the ear of the press and increasingly that of the the publishers, but who fiercely rejects any minimal ethics or code of conduct, is a (growing) problem? Also, that 1. problems have to be investigated before deciding they are are legitimate and serious; 2. this investigation is not social media, blogs and the press; 3. this investigation should not be on the front page of journals and Retraction Watch; 4. there are degrees of seriousness and some things can just be corrected or are simply not very consequential (no, it's not a house of bricks where we have to check every brick, that's a dumb analogy), so being absolutely hysterical and overdramatic about any lie, inaccuracy or mistake is purposeful at worse and should be ignored at best and 5. it is not only unnecessary, but harmful, to also go into other, non-academic things the person did or does to complete "investigations" that you (press, sleuth, blogger, etc) do not have the tools and information to do completely and accurately (this fixation would be called harassment in the before times). Others will justly write about what the institutions did or did not do, but what I want to say is that we really should end it with the blank credit we give to any and all allegations that come from the establish research integrity truth fighters.

Egon Willighagen (@egonw@social.edu.nl)

I commented on @PubPeer@mastodon.social on "Advances in nanomaterial-mediated CRISPR/Cas delivery: from lipid nanoparticles to vesicle-derived systems" https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1669104, that got published today. I don't do this often, and even hesitant to post here. But I have some questions: https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/E18F253C8EB7B947220AFDB4F608FC#1 I welcome if other people can also have a look. I did some journal editing yesterday, and that makes me sometimes more critical than I need to be.

PubPeer - Efficacy of oral folinic acid supplementation in children wi... | Ioana A. Cristea | 13 comments

Over the last week, I have privately been in contact with several friends and collaborators over the *SINGLE* study that was cited by the FDA in supporting the label extension of leucovorin for autism spectrum disorders. https://lnkd.in/dHpfCt_9 https://lnkd.in/dYWbHXyY Given the enormous importance of this study, and the fact that the results look too good to be true and there are various signals I would have thought would have raised a sleuth eyebrow (for example, Table 1 where all categorical values in each group except for 1 differ by exactly one unit), I am very surprised that until now the only Pubpeer comments are by two MDs and by myself, pointing to some inconsistencies between tables and figures. https://lnkd.in/duFQDccr I have also formally asked the authors for the individual participant data. Perhaps given this is not some random wacky study about how much food can one eat in a fast-food or some obscure paper citing another obscure retracted paper, but the SINGLE study that now underpins the retrospective post-marketing approval of an entire treatment, the very large community of people who want to correct science ASAP particularly when findings have huge policy implications could join me in scrutinizing this study to make sure findings are reliable and that the data are correct and analyzed correctly. | 13 comments on LinkedIn

Elena Rossini 🌈 (@_elena@mastodon.social)

Update from my source dev 2: "Miraculously - only hours after publishing your article Elena - the issue seems to be resolved" I will update my article now.

I tried to report scientific misconduct. How did it go?

This is the story of how I found what I believe to be scientific misconduct and what happened when I reported it. Science is supposed to b...

Fabricated Citations — CITADEL

4,046 fabricated citations in the biomedical literature. A more than 12× rise in three years. Verified across PubMed, Crossref, OpenAlex, Google Scholar.