Elisabeth Bik on Twitter / X

There are clearly some problems in Figure S6b, but dr. S. is "deeply skeptical" and claims that these concerns are "unfounded".Look, you might have won the Nobel prize, but that does not mean you are correct here. I stand by my concerns. https://t.co/l47YC65nZp pic.twitter.com/Gy6xqomXvr— Elisabeth Bik (@MicrobiomDigest) June 16, 2024

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

Research ethics: 3 ways to blow the whistle

Reporting suspicions of scientific fraud is rarely easy, but some paths are more effective than others.

White House Health Report Included Fake Citations (Published 2025)

A report on children’s health released by the Make America Healthy Again Commission referred to scientific papers that did not exist.

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: an audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers

Scientific literature depends on the integrity of its references. Each reference implicitly asserts that a verifiable source exists and supports the claims being made. When references point to non-existent studies, readers, reviewers, and policy makers are unable to evaluate the evidence.

Fabricated citations: an audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers

Scientific literature depends on the integrity of its references. Each reference implicitly asserts that a verifiable source exists and supports the claims being made. When references point to non-existent studies, readers, reviewers, and policy makers are unable to evaluate the evidence.

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.

Itai Yanai on Twitter / X

Is the scientific paper a fraud? Peter Medawar (Nobel Prize winner) suggested that publications are overly structured and formal, giving only a sanitized version of the discovery without revealing the thought process that actually led to it. pic.twitter.com/E3ttRPzcfL— Itai Yanai (@ItaiYanai) October 27, 2024