The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Lecture by dr. Elisabeth Bik.

The speaker expresses gratitude for being invited to discuss the crucial topic of research integrity. They commend the Netherlands for its serious approach towards research integrity, based on their experiences with various countries. The speaker's background as a microbiologist turned science integrity consultant is shared, along with their online presence and the challenges of maintaining a public profile. They also disclose their sources of income to maintain transparency, including consulting work and a Patreon account. The speaker acknowledges the network of individuals who assist in their work, often anonymously, and the importance of discussing scientific misconduct openly.

The speaker delves into the definition of scientific misconduct, citing the Office of Research Integrity's classification into plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication. They discuss the impact of misconduct, emphasizing that science is a cumulative endeavor built on previous works. Misconduct can compromise the foundation of scientific research, necessitating open discussion and correction. The speaker also highlights the personal stories behind misconduct cases, including the pressures and motivations that lead individuals to cheat, and calls for a focus on the issues rather than the individuals involved.

The speaker presents a methodology for identifying duplications in scientific images, categorizing them into three types: simple duplication, repositioned duplication, and altered duplication. They explain how each type reflects varying levels of intent, with category one possibly being an honest error and category three being highly suspicious. Using examples, the speaker illustrates how these duplications can mislead readers and undermine the integrity of scientific research. They also discuss their experience in scanning thousands of papers and the prevalence of such issues in scientific literature.

The speaker shares their findings from analyzing 20,000 scientific papers, revealing a 4% occurrence of duplicated images. They estimate that about half of these instances were intentionally misleading, suggesting a significant issue within scientific literature. The speaker also discusses the correlation between journal impact factors and the occurrence of problematic images, noting an inverse relationship. They express concern over the slow and inadequate response from journals to reports of misconduct, highlighting the need for better systems to address these issues.

The speaker recounts their experiences reporting scientific misconduct to journals, expressing disappointment in the lack of action taken even after years. They highlight the discrepancy in responses, from corrections to retractions, and the impact of this on trust in scientific research. The speaker also discusses the negative reactions they've received for their work, including legal threats, and emphasizes the need for better support and protection for whistleblowers. They conclude by reiterating the importance of their work in warning others about potentially compromised research.

The speaker advocates for the use of social media and public platforms to discuss cases of scientific misconduct, drawing parallels with the #MeToo movement. They argue that public discussion can pressure institutions and journals into taking action. Despite the risks and challenges, including legal threats, the speaker remains committed to their work, buoyed by the support from the scientific community. They also highlight the need for more dialogue and less litigation in addressing scientific integrity issues.

The speaker exposes the existence of 'paper mills'—companies that sell fake scientific papers to individuals needing publications. They discuss the specific demand in China, where early-career medical doctors are required to publish scientific papers. The speaker describes how these papers, while appearing legitimate, often follow a template and contain duplicated images or text. They share their experience in identifying such papers by recognizing patterns and similarities across different papers, and express concern over the impact of these fraudulent publications on scientific integrity.

The speaker reflects on the support they've received from the scientific community for their work on integrity issues. They express pride in being recognized by prestigious scientific journals and appreciate the backing they receive, which emboldens them to continue their work despite challenges. The speaker also discusses the need for a more systematic approach to replicability in research, suggesting the idea of research jobs focused on replicating others' findings. They call for a shift in focus from publications to reproducibility and stress the need for better measures to ensure the quality of scientific work.

The speaker discusses the root causes of scientific misconduct, including the pressure to publish and the hierarchical structure of academia that can lead to intimidation. They advocate for a focus on reproducibility and the creation of research roles centered around replicating results. The speaker also calls for greater accountability from those in power positions, improved legal protection for whistleblowers, and better handling of conflicts of interest within publishing houses. They emphasize the high costs of misconduct to science and the scientific community and urge for faster action in addressing integrity issues.

The speaker shares the challenges of identifying and reporting scientific misconduct, highlighting the time-consuming process of gathering evidence and contacting relevant parties. They express frustration with the lack of efficient channels for reporting issues and the slow response from journals and institutions. The speaker also discusses the various ways they receive information about potential misconduct cases and the difficulty of managing their extensive workload. They advocate for journals to subscribe to platforms like PubPeer to facilitate more efficient communication and response to concerns.

The speaker discusses their role in identifying and reporting scientific misconduct, likened to a vigilante or detective. They highlight the importance of their work in maintaining the integrity of scientific research and the challenges faced, including legal threats and the need for better support systems. The speaker also reflects on the impact of their work on the scientific community and the importance of public discussion in addressing misconduct. They express hope for a shift towards more transparency and accountability in scientific publishing and the need for new models that do not rely heavily on large publishers.