Elisabeth Bik

'Elisabeth Bik is a Dutch microbiologist. [...] Then she opened a PhD thesis that had lifted text from somewhere else, and her eye caught something different. A duplicated image. She sat down and went through 20,621 published biomedical papers. By eye.'

RT @rust_ruslan: Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me. For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science. TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵

RT @iteratedlog: This AI acknowledgement takes the win. From this paper:

RT @PNASNews: A study of articles suspected of being associated with “paper mills”in the field of molecular cancer shows the papers cite other paper mill papers to inflate their metrics. These practices can amplify unreliable findings and slow scientific progress.

RT @DgCostagliola: Site de pubmed ce matin : quand la terminologie est décidée par executive order !

RT @MicrobiomDigest: @SciGuardians @ScienceMagazine Eh, that is called journalistic reporting on facts?

RT @thegautamkamath: How do you tell if authors fabricated their research results? Sometimes: they just tell you. Read, e.g., this caption carefully. Another banger of a post by my friend Nihar B. Shah on his blog, where he found at least 20+ such #ICLR2027 submissions:

RT @addictedtoigno1: Today I am sharing a new preprint and accompanying blog post. Hundreds of published papers include impossible western blots showing protein expression in cell lines that have deleted or mutated genes. These clumsy mistakes are widespread and repeated by LLMs.

RT @LiangRhea: I know this pic has been posted by others already, but... what on earth @RCPhysicians ?! 😱 #NoMoreManels #DiversityAndInclusion

"the Editor does not have sufficient evidence to retract the article" What WOULD qualify as sufficient evidence, one might ask. #ImageForensics #ThisImageIsFine

Not sure what new 'sufficient' evidence came to light (perhaps it was just my tweet?), but the article has been retracted:

RT @RetractionWatch: "Award-winning microscopy image disqualified over AI use."

RT @_TheTransmitter: Journals have retracted four neural tube studies from researchers at The University of Maryland following an internal investigation that identified image duplications and other data integrity issues. By @claulopezneuro

RT @C_ReyesAldasoro: This must be a very interesting seminar: "Errors and Misconduct in Biomedical Research Images" with the brilliant @MicrobiomDigest hosted by German Bioimaging Group

RT @pushmeet: Most important, we want to get this model into as many scientists’ hands as we can. Today, we’re announcing that 10,000 scientists will get the highest usage tier access to Gemini 4 Argon in Google @antigravity free of charge for 6 months. Apply here:

RT @RetractionWatch: OpenAI withdraws three preprints 1 day after releasing 722 manuscripts on unsolved math problems.

RT @CBSNews: A Wyoming microbiology graduate student from China has been arrested on accusations she poisoned the tea of a colleague who had pending patents and with whom she didn't get along, then tried to flee the country after police questioned her.

RT @heatherlgornik: As an Editor, in past ~6mo, we are receiving an avalanche of unsolicited review articles (“scoping” “systematic”, narrative, NOS) on topics and ?s NO ONE EVER has asked and clearly with heavy AI lift. Even the cover letters all read the same…alarming and sad. #publishing

RT @senseaboutsci: We're just days away from revealing the shortlist for the 2026 Maddox Prize for standing up for science. While we wait, we're sharing what receiving the award has meant to a select few of our previous winners. The Maddox Prize 2026 is supported by the @royalsociety

RT @Nature: None of this year's science Nobel Prizes have gone to women. The number of these prizes to go to women remains at 27 out of more than 600. See how many you can name in our quiz:

RT @Thatsregrettab1: @neutrinomoon Obviously... but those facing scrutiny are clearly unhappy about it. That a Nobel Prize winner has an ego so fragile he can't imagine his papers might contain errors (or worse), and instead attacks those who find them, says it all. If he can't handle scrutiny, who can?

RT @LockedFab: 79th retraction for the Marseille "retraction institute." The 66th for Didier Raoult. Lack of ethical approval.