Preprint retractions are a thing and I’ve helped along a few from Research Square (4 of these specifically)… retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSe...
25.02.2026 05:29
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Preprint retractions are a thing and I’ve helped along a few from Research Square (4 of these specifically)… retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSe...
A Retraction Watch story left one reader intrigued. “I’ve never seen anything like that before,” said John Loadsman of the University of Sydney, an anesthesiologist and journal editor. “I thought, I’ve got to have a look.”
Depressing that a huge proportion of image misconduct is in Cancer research.
Paper published 20 years back. Clear signs of Photoshop. First reports on PubPeer was 2024. @grumpygasbag.bsky.social pointed to more problems. I have just done another animation based on that.
pubpeer.com/publications...
Put pressure on publishers to follow best practice — external regulation is the answer. Journals that work hard to meet the needs of both authors and readers should be acknowledged publicly — encouraging others to follow suit. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
@j-clin-anesth.bsky.social @elsevierconnect.bsky.social this problem was also brought to your attention more than two years ago. Surely something needs to be done here… pubpeer.com/publications...
@j-clin-anesth.bsky.social @elsevierconnect.bsky.social this issue was reported to your journal nearly three years ago yet nothing much seems to be happening... pubpeer.com/publications...
Great minds! 😂
Screenshot of the original published figure (left) and the corrected figure (right). In the left photo we see tumors in a grid of 5 columns and 6 rows. Two sets of tumors are marked by me with blue and green boxes respectively. In the right photo the duplicated tumors are just left out.
Hey @tandfresearch.bsky.social, - you should not allow authors to address photoshopped tumors by just leaving out the photoshopped tumors. This paper was 1 year old at the time of correction. Where are the originals?
Horrible editorial decision.
#ImageForensics
Retracted September 2025…
Well, TvH, I can assure you there does not seem to be any absolute minimum speed!
We don’t know if it’s the fastest retraction ever, but the speed is nonetheless notable: A journal retracted a paper 22 hours after a sleuth raised concerns about the article.
@annsaudimed.bsky.social you might want to ask the authors to address some questions that have been raised about their paper pubpeer.com/publications...
I’m certainly not surprised. I haven’t found another editor yet who makes more than a cursory attempt to check the registration (rare), if at all (usual). It’s not only necessary to check the registration exists, but also the history of changes, the original version sometimes bearing no resemblance
The excellent form of @elsevierconnect.bsky.social continues...
@elsevierconnect.bsky.social in good form…
We would like to thank the awardees, speakers, moderators, and guests for the wonderful evening at the 2024 #EinsteinFoundationAward ceremony! @kaiwegner.bsky.social @regberlin.bsky.social @elisabethbik.bsky.social @pubpeer.com @helenajambor.bsky.social @chrischmied.bsky.social
At least they didn't use a serif font for the error bars. https//e-century.u...
Starting?
A simulated ‘can’t intubate, can’t oxygenate’ manikin crossover study investigating a modified front-of-neck access airway device
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...
This is different. Eyeglasses and candles for mean markers. Perhaps the editor(s), reviewers and Wiley could have borrowed the candles and glasses to help them see the problems with the error bars pubpeer.com/publications...
