WCSJ 2013 presentation, Helsinki. Update of various presentations on scientific misconduct and retractions.

1. Can We Still Trust Science?
World Conference of Science Journalists
Helsinki
June 26, 2013
Ivan Oransky
Executive Editor, Reuters Health
Co-founder, Retraction Watch
http://retractionwatch.com
@ivanoransky

2. Is This Science Today?

4. This is Transparency?

5. This is Transparency?
Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the
reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…

6. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”

7. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”

8. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”
“a duplicate of a paper that has already been
published”…by other authors

9. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”
“a duplicate of a paper that has already been
published”…by other authors
“significant originality issue”

10. The Euphemisms
“unattributed overlap”
an “approach”
“a duplicate of a paper that has already been
published”…by other authors
“significant originality issue”
“Some sentences…are directly taken from other
papers, which could be viewed as a form of
plagiarism”

11. How Often Are Studies Wrong?

12. How Often Are Studies Wrong?
Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124

13. We Are All Gatekeepers:
hESCs in Cell

14. hESCs in Cell

15. “It does however have several examples of image
reuse which might be of interest to PubPeer
members and readers.”
hESCs in Cell

16. hESCs in Cell

17. hESCs in Cell

18. hESCs in Cell
A number of comments about these errors in
articles and blogs have drawn connections to the
speed of the peer review process for this paper.
Given the broad interest, importance, anticipated
scrutiny of the claims of the paper and the
preeminence of the reviewers, we have no reason
to doubt the thoroughness or rigor of the review
process.

19. hESCs in Cell
The comparatively rapid turnaround for this paper
can be attributed to the fact that the reviewers
graciously agreed to prioritize attention to reviewing
this paper in a timely way. It is a misrepresentation
to equate slow peer review with thoroughness or
rigor or to use timely peer review as a justification
for sloppiness in manuscript preparation.

20. Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up
http://www.labtimes.org

21. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/

22. Blogs Get Aggressive

23. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com

24. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://www.science-fraud.org/

25. Journals Are Listening

26. Journals Are Listening

27. Scientists Are Concerned, Too

28. Contact Info
ivan-oransky@erols.com
http://retractionwatch.com
@ivanoransky
Thanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health
Robert Lee Hotz, Wall Street Journal