Scientific sleuths come in from the cold
Research integrity investigators are starting to organize, but the field, and the people, remain idiosyncratic
A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’
As the publishing community debates the merits of naming sleuths in retraction or correction notices, one journal did so without the sleuth’s permission — by publishing an email from the authors na…
Let's normalize debunking each other
The spread of misinformation has become an epidemic, but information hygiene can help.
“Anything you post on the internet will be there as long as it's embarrassing an... | Hacker News
How Do You Find an Illegal Image Without Looking at It?
61.8 million files of suspected child abuse were reported in 2025 alone. This is how machines detect them at internet scale — without any human ever seeing the content.
EFF to State AGs: Investigate Google's Broken Promise to Users
Google's Failure to Warn Users About Law Enforcement Demands for Data Is Deceptive
Mystery101 Sleuthers GIF - Mystery101 Sleuthers Jill Wagner - Discover & Share GIFs
Click to view the GIF
A Delphi survey on attitudes to serious research misconduct: Exploring convergence vs. polarization of views of research “sleuths” and research integrity experts
Research fraud is often seen as a rare event, but evidence from self-report surveys indicates that fabrication and falsification of data are common enough to be a problem. This study assessed attit...
Just Asking Questions: Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots
Interactive chat systems that build on artificial intelligence frameworks are increasingly ubiquitous and embedded into search engines, Web browsers, and operating systems, or are available on websites and apps. Researcher efforts have sought to understand the limitations and potential for harm of generative AI, which we contribute to here. Conducting a systematic review of six AI-powered chat systems (ChatGPT 3.5; ChatGPT 4 Mini; Microsoft Copilot in Bing; Google Search AI; Perplexity; and Grok in Twitter/X), this study examines how these leading products respond to questions related to conspiracy theories. This follows the platform policy implementation audit approach established by Glazunova et al. (2023). We select five well-known and comprehensively debunked conspiracy theories and four emerging conspiracy theories that relate to breaking news events at the time of data collection. Our findings demonstrate that the extent of safety guardrails against conspiratorial ideation in generative AI chatbots differs markedly, depending on chatbot model and conspiracy theory. Our observations indicate that safety guardrails in AI chatbots are often very selectively designed: generative AI companies appear to focus especially on ensuring that their products are not seen to be racist; they also appear to pay particular attention to conspiracy theories that address topics of substantial national trauma such as 9/11 or relate to well-established political issues. Future work should include an ongoing effort extended to further platforms, multiple languages, and a range of conspiracy theories extending well beyond the United States.
Just Asking Questions: Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots
Interactive chat systems that build on artificial intelligence frameworks are increasingly ubiquitous and embedded into search engines, Web browsers, and operating systems, or are available on websites and apps. Researcher efforts have sought to understand the limitations and potential for harm of generative AI, which we contribute to here. Conducting a systematic review of six AI-powered chat systems (ChatGPT 3.5; ChatGPT 4 Mini; Microsoft Copilot in Bing; Google Search AI; Perplexity; and Grok in Twitter/X), this study examines how these leading products respond to questions related to conspiracy theories. This follows the platform policy implementation audit approach established by Glazunova et al. (2023). We select five well-known and comprehensively debunked conspiracy theories and four emerging conspiracy theories that relate to breaking news events at the time of data collection. Our findings demonstrate that the extent of safety guardrails against conspiratorial ideation in generative AI chatbots differs markedly, depending on chatbot model and conspiracy theory. Our observations indicate that safety guardrails in AI chatbots are often very selectively designed: generative AI companies appear to focus especially on ensuring that their products are not seen to be racist; they also appear to pay particular attention to conspiracy theories that address topics of substantial national trauma such as 9/11 or relate to well-established political issues. Future work should include an ongoing effort extended to further platforms, multiple languages, and a range of conspiracy theories extending well beyond the United States.
I have many questions about this. What if the sleuth finds nothing, embarks on a project that leads to nothing? How will the validation happen? What happened to old terms like research integrity? And finally, should we perhaps reflect a bit (I would say even worry) about the incentive being set up?
Retraction Watch
We're thrilled to announce the creation of the Retraction Watch Sleuth in Residence Program.
In my ideal world, every promotion (eg full professor) or large personal grant committee would have two paid sleuths that go through/sample candidates' CVs for sloppyness and QRPs. What do sleuths think of that? We would need a database of people and a concept of what a basic CV check looks like.
Lots of scepticism about codes of ethics in this piece but surely the work of sleuthing needs to be grounded in some kind of observable, ethical process. Otherwise it's just as opaque and unscientific as the stuff it's investigating.
Dalmeet Singh Chawla
Research sleuths are starting to organize, but the field, and the people, remain idiosyncratic — my latest for @cenmag.bsky.social: cen.acs.org/research-integrity/scientific… @mcintold.bsky.social, @reeserichardson.bsky.social, @elisabethbik.bsky.social, @sholtodavid.bsky.social, @eugenie-reich.bsky.social
And for context, here are the sleuths' profiles in other outlets: thetransmitter.org/publishing/retraction-she-wro… zmescience.com/science/the-rise-of-the-scien… These people are pros.
Retraction, She Wrote: Dorothy Bishop’s life after research
www.thetransmitter.orgI don't see the point in giving sleuths credit for retractions. It doesn't seem like a good way of valuing labour and also further turns retractions into a kind of weird moral economy.
Noticed: Sleuths are starting to get credit for retractions
retractionwatch.com
