Adam Marcus, Agustin Armendariz, American Association of Cancer Research, Anonymous Commenter, Carlo Croce, Character Assassination, Clare Francis, Corruption, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, Fernando Pessoa (Retraction Watch), First Amendment to US Constitution, Fraud, Ivan Oransky, James Glanz, New York Times, NIH funding, Office of Research Integrity, Ohio Southern District Court, Ohio State University, Paul S. Thaler, Post Publication Peer Review Scam, PubPeer, Reporting Retractions, Reputation Damage, Retraction Watch, Scientific corruption, Scientific Integrity, Scientific Misconduct, Scientific publication

Carlo Croce sued The New York Times; he should not spare Retraction Watch

Carlo M. Croce is a towering figure in cancer genetics. His discovery of the molecular mechanisms in leukemia and other malignancies places him in the league of pioneers in the field like Janet Rowley. Croce’s peers have recognized his contributions, elected him to the US National Academy of Science in 1996 and showered him with prizes. Notwithstanding his success, concerns about the integrity of Croce’s work are surfacing and certain people seem to be now investing in his downfall. A while back, MIT Nobel laureate Philip Sharp praised him but detected some sloppiness in his work, while UC Berkeley Nobel laureate Randy Schekman claimed that as editor he became aware of certain allegations concerning Croce’s research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

InBev+Baillet+Latour+Awards+de+la+Sante+2013+rT6H1wjTGQHl

The 2013 prize of the Artois-Baillet Latour Foundation given by HRH The Queen of Belgium to Carlo M. Croce.

Croce’s fall from grace happened when he was defamed in an article published in the New York Times on March 8 of this year. The authors of the article, James Glanz and Agustin Armendariz, tell us that Croce had been dodging misconduct allegations for decades, and that a major cover-up was put up by Ohio State University (OSU), Croce’s home institution, because he was bringing millions of dollars in grant overhead each year. Glanz and Armendariz tell us that Croce, the discoverer of cancer mechanisms that saved the lives of thousands, had been cheating all along but “was too big to make findings of misconduct on”.

The entire scientific community was in a state of shock at what seemed to be a flagrant act of defamation. In America, as in most countries under the rule of law, Croce should be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, and his innocence should be protected at all cost, as it seemed to have been the case with OSU’s internal investigation. It came as a shock to everybody that these unresolved or closed investigations would be exposed in a major venue like the NYT, destroying in one stroke Croce’s reputation earned through decades of hard work. Yet, most of the scientific community dismissed these unproven allegations: on March 29, a few days after the defamatory article appeared in the NYT, the American Association of Cancer Research made Carlo Croce the recipient of the Margaret Foti Award for Leadership and Extraordinary Achievements in Cancer Research.  Not surprisingly, this recognition emboldened Croce. Carlo Croce sued the NYT in Court for defamation a few weeks later. The particulars of the lawsuit are as follows:

Croce v. New York Times Company et al (case filed May 10, 2017)

Ohio Southern District Court
Judge: James L Graham
Referred: Terence P Kemp
Case #: 2:17-cv-00402
Nature of Suit 320 Torts – Personal Injury – Assault, Libel, & Slander
Cause 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

The lingering question is who instigated the NYT article and emboldened Glanz and Armindariz? Why would Glanz and Armendariz risk everything to go after a towering figure in cancer research, whose discoveries saved thousands of lives, with nothing more that conjectures and unproven allegations over sloppiness in reporting or conducting scientific research? Glanz and Armendariz were fueled, emboldened, enabled and inspired by a blog name Retraction Watch, the true instigator of Carlo Croce’s downfall and, specifically, of the NYT defamation piece.

Retraction Watch purportedly reports on scientific misconduct. Yet Retraction Watch is engaged in the most corrupt and less transparent scheme imaginable. To generate enough activity, the Retraction Watch founders created two anonymous characters, giving them writers’ names: Clare Francis and Fernando Pessoa. Clare Francis operates in secrecy, while Fernando Pessoa operates in the open. Unchecked allegations, including all kinds of inanities, personal attacks, etc. are first received by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, the two medicine/science dropouts who founded Retraction Watch. Then, Oransky and his pal make sure these allegations turn into substantial news that can be reported by Retraction Watch. Soon after the unchecked allegations emanating from any source (literally any) land on Oransky’s desk, they get funneled by Clare Francis in the most brazen threatening terms imaginable to journals, institutions and individuals, that get harassed and coerced into taking immediate action. According to the journal editors, over 90% of the allegations by Clare Francis are simply gibberish. Once some scathing reaction, for example a journal retraction, is elicited by Clare Francis and gets out in the open, Retraction Watch immediately reports it, broadcasting the scathing news in the harshest terms possible. Retraction Watch can do this extremely swiftly, usually the very same day the reaction becomes public, obviously because Clare Francis is the secret arm of Retraction Watch: they generate the same news they broadcast. Immediately after Retraction Watch publishes their piece, Fernando Pessoa comments profusely on it adding other instances of perceived misconduct allegedly committed by the person under attack. Obviously, Fernando Pessoa can also act so swiftly and thoroughly on each case simply because it is also part of Retraction Watch. To summarize, first the secret arm Clare Francis elicits reactions by journals, institutions and individuals that are brazenly approached with misconduct accusations, then Retraction Watch openly scorns and humiliates the accused person in the harshest terms possible, and finally Fernando Pessoa adds as much salt to the injury as possible. That is how the coward defamation scheme works, as anyone with a moderate ability to think can figure out by reading Retraction Watch.

Let us now focus on Retraction Watch chasing and pillorying of Carlo Croce and on its inspirational enabling role in the NYT investigation. One of the most striking details of the NYT article is its identification by Glanz and Armendariz of Clare Francis, the secret arm of Retraction Watch, as the agent who brashly brought up thirty or more misconduct allegations against Carlo Croce to the attention of OSU authorities. It should be noted that Croce had been profusely attacked and defamed by Retraction Watch prior to the appearance of the NYT article, on May 5, 2014, on April 6, 2015, on October 10, 2016 and, especially, on January 24, 2017, when Fernando Pessoa, the second arm of Retraction Watch, added 15 (fifteen) scathing comments against Carlo Croce on the very same day! In this way, all of Clare Francis accusations presented to OSU were fully covered also by Retraction Watch. On March 8, 2017, within a few hours after the NYT article came out, Retraction Watch published its own fiercely scathing article against Carlo Croce, covering the NYT defamation in gory detail and even amplifying the damage, and this time Fernando Pessoa added 13 (thirteen) comments describing more instances of misconduct allegedly committed by Carlo Croce. On March 15, another article damaging Carlo Croce came out at Retraction Watch, but the apotheosis came on March 30, 2017, a day after the AACR prize to Carlo Croce was announced. Oransky and his pal were truly incensed. On March 30, 2017 in an article entitled “Cancer org bestows award on scientist under investigation“, Retraction Watch expressed its outrage that Carlo Croce, a person seriously suspected of misconduct, would be given a prize by a “Cancer org” (Retraction Watch was referring to the American Association of Cancer Research). Fernando Pessoa swiftly added three scathing comments that day. Retraction Watch kept of defaming Croce on April 3, 2017 (Fernando Pessoa added 9 nasty comments this time), June 9, August 29, and September 8, 2017, with Fernando Pessoa adding scathing comments each time.

Carlo Croce sued the NYT for defamation. He should not spare Retraction Watch, the instigator and enabler of the NYT article. Oransky and his pal Marcus should be served in court for the great disservice they are doing to science and to the people whose lives are saved every day thanks to Croce’s discoveries.

Advertisements
Standard
Cancer Research, Carlo Croce, Character Assassination, Civil Death, Clare Francis, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, First Amendment to US Constitution, Fraud, Ivan Oransky, National Institutes of Health, New York Times, NIH, NIH funding, Office of Research Integrity, Ohio State University, Paul S. Thaler, protected free speech, Research misconduct, Retraction Watch, Scientific corruption, Scientific publication

Stellar cancer researcher Carlo Croce falls from grace: hypocrisy in science

Last week The New York Times published a front-page story entitled “Years of Ethics Charges but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass“.  The article grossly disparages Prof. Carlo Croce, a towering figure in cancer biology and genetics, and his home institution, The Ohio State University. It describes in some detail multiple accusations of misconduct and malfeasance that have been targeting Croce for years.

bio_croce

Dr. Carlo M. Croce, Ohio State University

We are told that Croce has been dodging grave allegations that he falsified data in research supported by more than $86 million in federal grants that have been awarded to him. The investigative task of the Times reporters was greatly facilitated by the fact that the records at Ohio’s courthouses and its university system are completely open to the public. And Ohio State University, which claims it had spent more money supporting Dr. Croce’s research than it had received in grants, was apparently totally responsive to requests for records.

The big problem with all this is that to this day there is no hard evidence of misconduct implicating Croce. Ohio State had repeatedly investigated Croce and cleared him of wrongdoing every single time. How disinterested these investigations were is of course a matter of debate.

Since Dr. Carlo Croce has not been proven guilty of misconduct by the preponderance of evidence, the public does not have the right to know about these investigations and he must be presumed innocent. The integrity of Croce’s career should have been protected. The New York Times article is actionable in Court.

The most astonishing aspect of the story is that neither government agencies nor Ohio State believed Croce would be seriously investigated for misconduct, since he is one of Ohio State biggest rainmakers. This bespeaks of a system corrupt to the marrow and draws a lesson that epitomizes the level of hypocrisy that plagues the science establishment.

Of course we wonder who sent James Glanz, the Times reporter, the documents that appeared in Mr. Glanz’s email inbox, in what his collaborator Agustin Armendariz calls three big dumps. This is anyone’s guess. The Times story mentions Clare Francis, the pseudonym for an agent for the blog Retraction Watch, whose brash nauseating style is reminiscent of Ivan Oransky’s writing…

In any case, that would be discovered in Court if and when Dr. Carlo M. Croce decides to take legal action.

Standard
Blog, Character Assassination, Clare Francis, Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, Expression of concern, Hilda Bastian, lawsuit, Mass hysteria, McCarthyism, National Institutes of Health, NCBI, NIH, NLM, Office of Research Integrity, Paul S. Thaler, Post publication peer review, Post Publication Peer Review Scam, Reporting Retractions, Research Integrity, Research misconduct, Retraction, Retraction Watch, Scientific corruption, Scientific Misconduct, Scientific publication, Scientific Reproducibility

Handling scientific post-publication events: Legal action required

Hilda Bastian is an NIH contractor for PubMed Health and PubMed Commons at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). She also seems to be a prolific science writer. Bastian recently informed the blog Retraction Watch that the NLM is planning a prominent display of Expressions of Concern (EoC) published by scientific journals. By her own admission, Hilda Bastian is not versed in scientific matters. Given what she intends to do, let us hope she is versed in legal matters, or at least willing to seek legal advice.

In the US, as in most societies under the rule of law, a person is deemed innocent unless proven guilty, and any suggestion that may affect someone’s reputation without hard proof constitutes defamation. By Bastian’s own admission, only about 25% of EoCs typically result in retraction. This begs the question: What do the authors whose papers received the remaining 75% of EoCs plan to do?

Lawyer Paul S. Thaler, a towering figure in scientific integrity may be the ideal person to assist such people determine their legal options. Paul S. Thaler made the following enlightening remark:

The first thing to remember is that the federal regulations, as well as the internal policies of most institutions, protect the confidentiality of respondents in research misconduct matters.  Thus, as a matter of federal law, institutions are prohibited from disclosing the identity of an accused scientist, except on a “need to know” basis, for example, to a member of the investigation committee, unless and until a finding of research misconduct is made.  These proceedings are not public as court is in criminal and civil disputes.  It is more comparable to proceedings against other professionals, such as lawyers, who are governed by their licensing organization.  Privacy in these matters is critically important as there is no public need to, or right to know, about professionals simply accused of wrongdoing.  What the public has a right to know about is a professional who has been found responsible for wrongdoing.  At that point, the public is alerted.  But because a professional’s reputation is so important to his or her career, the specter of an accusation can permanently stain that reputation and frequently the accusation is not well founded.  So the confidentiality of the process allows a full examination before the public is made aware.  We certainly do want to know about those scientists who have actually done something wrong that impacts science, but we do not, and should not, be concerned with those who are good scientists but caught up in a sometimes very political, internal dispute.

The bold section is crucial because it implies that EoCs are in all likelihood illegal, and so is the dissemination of such statements. The public does not have the right to know about mere accusations of wrongdoing, or suspicions of invalid data resulting in EoCs. According to Hilda Bastian such EoCs are likely to be wrong in 75% of the cases. For example, pseudonymous Clare Francis, the venal whistle-blower of Retraction Watch, has scored plenty of false positives eliciting EoCs mostly in the 75% of valid papers. Yet we are not aware that Retraction Watch or other related venues have been sued yet. Hopefully, Hilda Bastian will reflect about her plans and seek legal advice before charging ahead.

 

 

 

Standard
Adam Marcus, Anonymous Commenter, Cat Ferguson, Character Assassination, Clare Francis, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Fazlul Sarkar, Fraud, Information source, Ivan Oransky, Joshua Cherry, lawsuit, NCBI, NIH, NLM, Office of Research Integrity, Peer Review, Post publication peer review, protected free speech, PubMed, PubMed Commons, PubPeer, PubPeer lawsuit, Research Integrity, Retraction Watch, Science, Scientific Misconduct, Transparency, Wayne State University

Aberrant Post Publication Peer Review at Retraction Watch and PubPeer

While most scientists were skeptical from the start, some science writers heralded the self-published blog Retraction Watch as a beacon for scientific transparency. They were wrong. Without any solid standards for scientific critique, the blog degenerated in no time into a grisly predator of scientific misfortune. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Retraction Watch quickly became the Asian carp of scientific reporting.

Much as I tried, it is truly hard to find today anything lofty or elevating about Retraction Watch, as the blog preys ruthlessly and relentlessly on science errors and career mistakes. They never take the high ground but instead keep indulging in the petty smearing of scientists’ reputations. When I say that there is nothing dignified about this blog, I mean it. Get a taste of their style right from the pen of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, the Retraction Watch founders, from their contribution to The Scientist:

“…we recommend reading about the case of Michael W. Miller, who faked data on his federal grant applications and had several papers retracted in 2012. This year, however, Miller bounced back, landing a job as, you guessed it, a consultant for grant applications! (He lost that gig after we called his employers to ask if they knew about his past.)”

I suppose one can simply argue this is in poor taste. I and others find this writing truly degrading.

Today Retraction Watch published an extensive defense of their partner PubPeer recently sued by Dr. Fazlul Sarkar, a Professor at Wayne State University. The logic of the defense by Retraction Watch is so aberrant that it barely calls for analysis. Yet, I will take up the opportunity to reflect on the dangers of Post Publication Peer Review (PPPR) which, at the hands of Retraction Watch and PubPeer, has become a travesty of peer review, posing a threat to the scientific establishment.

With the advent of NIH PubMed Commons as a venue for PPPR, it is likely -let us hope- that PubPeer and Retraction Watch will soon be driven to extintion. Fearing his own imminent irrelevance, Ivan Oransky, founder of Retraction Watch and self-proclaimed retraction expert, hastily transferred his own articles from Retraction Watch to PubMed Commons, smearing as many reputations as he possibly could. No noblesse oblige here. Sadly, Retraction Watch was irrelevant to the serious practice of science since its inception, so this smearing of reputations could have been spared.

Retraction Watch Team
Fazlul Sarkar is a professor with a prodigious scientific output of more than 500 peer reviewed publications, tens of millions of dollars in NIH funding, and drugs in clinical trial. Be as it may, we are not advocating for the integrity of his work. The anonymous reviewers at PubPeer and Retraction Watch comfortably took shots at Dr. Sarkar’s research hiding in anonymity and publishing their opinions in the blogs. The rules of fair play, transparency and scientific standards (how about decency?) indicate that if they really felt there was something wrong with Dr. Sarkar’s results, they should have submitted their conclusions to the same peer review journals where Dr. Sarkar reported his work, with a request that they be published subject to peer review, if necessary side by side with Dr. Sarkar’s rebuttal. The attacks by the bloggers were NOT subject to scientific peer review (they would not stand a chance), and yet they became public in venues with high internet traction like PubPeer and Retraction Watch, causing harm to Dr. Sarkar: He lost a generous job offer.

This aberrant miscarriage where a disreputable source tarnishes (in the eyes of some) the reputation of a scientist is all too common. It invites some basic questions about PPPR, as it is practiced by Retraction Watch and PubPeer:

1) Why did the commenters conceal their identity? Psychology 101: Because they fear and are ashamed to expose their insignificance relative to a scientist with the credentials of Dr. Sarkar. They also hide to avoid any legal consequences while taking a comfortable shot at Dr. Sarkar. There is an English word for this: cowardness. Ironically, a modest CV is no impediment to do good scientific work. Today, as in Einstein’s days, a physicist with humble credentials can publish his/her outstanding findings in a physics journal and eventually rise to stardom.

2) Why did the commenters avoid presenting their case in the journal where the original research was published? Because they knew they would not stand a chance (they knew they could not pass peer review in any decent journal) and because any serious journal would request that they disclose their identity.

3) What is the motivation for attacking researchers hiding in anonymity using self-published blogs? Simply put, such blogs have a huge traction in internet, as vulgarization of science sells better than science, and vulgarization of science conflict, even better, especially when spiced with exposure of career mistakes (one man’s sorrow is another man’s joy).

4) What is the motivation for targeting prominent researchers in the first place? Psychology 101: “I am a failure or perhaps something of a loser and Dr. Sarkar is successful, so he must be a phony, and I need to bring him down so I don’t look that bad myself and I feel a little better about myself”. “I can’t go to a journal because I don’t stand a chance and they would find out who I am, so I go to the blogs, that’s a lot easier”. Taken to extremes, this is the aberrant logic of John Lennon’s assassin. Tragically, internet now provides venues for character assassination, such as Retraction Watch and PubPeer.

Through a lawsuit, Dr. Sarkar is demanding that the identity of the commenters in the blogs that have harmed him be revealed, probably to take legal action against them once identified.
Ivan Oransky, self-proclained retraction expert and Retraction Watch founder, retorted Dr. Sarkar and had this to say about protecting the anonymity of commenters (please seat tight):

“If Michigan [home of Wayne State University where Sarkar works] had a more robust shield law, a lot of this might be moot. Such laws, which are on the books in many states, mean that reporters don’t have to disclose confidential sources, including anonymous commenters. That’s what protects anonymous commenters here on Retraction Watch — and we’d argue that PubPeer is providing a valuable service by publishing critiques, and should be eligible for such protection, too.”

Surely you must be joking, Ivan Oransky. Are you saying that the anonymous commenters at Retraction Watch and PubPeer are regarded as actual sources of information? Can you imagine the kind of news we would get if Yahoo would take the mob of Yahoo commenters as a reputable source of information?

It may well be that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects PubPeer and Retraction Watch from a suit, but surely nothing shields this type of aberration from the contempt by decent people.

Perhaps all is not lost and my posts are having some positive effect in a few Retraction Watch readers. Particularly encouraging is the following comment by a person who identified himself as Albert Gjedde published in Retraction Watch:

“It strikes me that post-publication peer “review” criticisms should appear in the form of equally peer-reviewed and published comments that are subject to the same scrutiny as the paper itself. Otherwise we are likely to get all kinds of more or less seriously considered observations, with uncontrollable consequences.”

By contrast, read the appalling reply by commenter “Scrutineer”, who practices PPPR at PubPeer and Retraction Watch. Scrutineer admits he refuses to go through peer review or “due process” because that would delay or nullify his slanderings:

“The way I feel is quite simple: Once these things are public, the more alert among the rank and file scientists are protected from wasting their time on false leads. Waiting several years while keeping quiet for “due process” to find out whether or not a paper will be corrected or retracted or – more likely – nothing happens gets demoralising after a while. PPPR from now on.”

This person obviously cannot wait to destroy others. Scrutineer wants to do it swiftly while cowardly hiding in anonymity, and of course cannot afford to wait for the peer review process, let along follow due process. With Retraction Watch and PubPeer, Scrutineer has found the ideal vehicle to defame others. Furthermore, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus (the other towering figure in retraction reporting) will appreciate the valuable source of information that Scrutineer provides with this kind of comment and protect his anonymity as reporters are not obliged to reveal their sources!

I think this is the paroxism of aberration. It just cannot get any worse than this.

PubPeer and Retraction Watch are loose cannons in the internet. They will soon be driven to extinction by more legitimate “fora for scientific discourse” such as PubMed Commons, a recent pilot initiative launched by NCBI/NLM/NIH. In PubMed Commons, staunch challengers of the work of others like Joshua Cherry feel more comfortable exposing their identity. Strikingly, the actual employment of Joshua Cherry at NCBI, where he claims he works, could not be established or corroborated, as it is nowhere to be found in the official NCBI/NLM/NIH webpages. While PubMed Commons is prey to some of the vices of PubPeer and Retraction Watch, at least the challengers are forced to disclose their identity and this fact alone sieves out some of the Retraction Watch zealots, while forcing serious contributors to be a bit more cautious and objective, a bit -shall we say- less emboldened by their primeval instincts.

On a humorous note, a scientist known for his witiness recently said: “Let’s not worry too much, Retraction Watch is as relevant to the serious practice of science as birds are mindful of ornithology”.

RELATED LINK: SUBPOENA ON BEHALF OF PROF. DR. FAZLUL SARKAR (PLAINTIFF) AGAINST PUBPEER

UPDATE FROM APRIL 14, 2015

PubPeer, Clare Francis and the Travesty of the First Amendment

An attorney for Prof. Fazlul Sarkar, the Wayne State University professor who may have lost a generous job offer because of scathing comments about his research posted on PubPeer, has asked a judge to reconsider last month’s decision not to release information about the site’s anonymous commenters. The brief introducing that motion identifies the PubPeer commenter with the pseudonym Clare Francis.

On March 19, a Michigan court ruled that PubPeer had to disclose identifying information about the PubPeer commenter, identified as the author of the second of the comments below:

Unregistered Submission:
(June 18th, 2014 4:51pm UTC)
Has anybody reported this to the institute?

Unregistered Submission:
(June 18th, 2014 5:43pm UTC)
Yes, in September and October 2013 the president of Wayne State University was informed several times.The Secretary to the Board of Governors wrote back on the 11th of November 2013:  “Thank you for your e-mail, which I have forwarded to the appropriate individual within Wayne State University. As you are aware, scientific misconduct investigations are by their nature confidential, and Wayne would not be able to comment on whether an inquiry into your allegations is under way, or if so, what its status might be. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention”

In a supplemental brief filed on April 9, Sarkar’s attorney Nicholas Roumel informs the court that Wayne State provided the email exchanges quoted in the comment, and that they were between “Clare Francis” and Julie H. Miller, secretary to Wayne State’s Board of Governors. Thus, the court learned that on November 10, 2013 Clare Francis wrote:

“I am writing to you about multiple scientific concerns about the published work of Fazlul H Sarkar which have been aired on Pubpeer.”

“You can find the entries on Pubpeer here: …”

“Many of the entries mention things which amount to what many think of as scientific misconduct….”

Following the supplemental brief and after spotting the libel, the court rightly ruled that PubPeer must provide the IP for Clare Francis to Roumel.

The blog Retraction Watch offered PubPeer’s attorneys the opportunity to comment, and they had this to say:

“We are deeply troubled that a scientist who exercised his or her right to anonymously report anomalies in scientific research is being threatened with possible liability. The First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously precisely so that, in circumstances like this one, individuals can report on matters of public interest without fear of retribution. This case is especially troubling because it threatens to weaken the foundation of scientific research, which relies on honest feedback and criticism from one’s peers.”

Nice words, but so meaningless! Let’s see:

a)      Where is the proof that Clare Francis is the pseudonym for “a scientist who exercised his or her right to anonymously report anomalies in scientific research”? Clare Francis could just as well be an angry person who hates Fazlul Sarkar or someone with a vested interest in his downfall.

b)      Where is the proof that Clare Francis is reporting on a matter of public interest? It could just as well be that Francis is simply the pseudonym of someone who hates Sarkar, envies his success, or has a vested interest in his downfall (to increase the readership of his blog), and this surely is a personal matter, not a matter of public interest.

c)       How do we know the slanderer of Prof. Sarkar is being honest? He could just as well be dishonest. In fact, everything suggests the latter to be the case: honest people who do the right thing do not usually hide, they don’t need to, at least in countries under the rule of law.

d)      How do the PubPeer attorneys know that Sarkar’s attacker is one of Sarkar’s peers? In fact, how do they know anybody at PubPeer is actually a peer of the scientists they are slandering? Clare Francis is not revealing his scientific credentials!

e)      Given that we don’t know whether Clare Francis is honest, or even whether Clare Francis is Sarkar’s peer, how can we assert that the case weakens the foundation of scientific research?

This one was an easy one, wasn’t it?

Standard
Adam Marcus, Character Assassination, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Due process, Fraud, Hatred, Ivan Oransky, McCarthyism, Office of Research Integrity, Peer Review, Research Integrity, Retraction, Retraction Watch, Science, Scientific Misconduct, Scientific publication, Transparency

Retraction Watch, PubPeer and other Haters and their Quest for Transparency

Scientific papers have been challenged since the early days of the Acta Eruditorum and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. For hundreds of years, the rules of fair play and transparency dictate that the challenger must seek publication of his/her adverse comments which must be granted pursuant to a favorable peer review conducted by the same journal where the challenged paper had appeared, while the challenged author is given the chance to rebut in the same forum and under the same rules of publication. With the controversy then fully in the open, the readership gets the chance to adjudicate and the editor may act upon the matter, sometimes even enforcing retraction.

Web access surely facilitates this exchange. Unfortunately, it also enables a grotesque distortion in the form of “post publication peer review”, a trigger-happy operation that exploits self-published blogs where angry people are granted willy-nilly the chance to pour hatred-related content into the web without consequences for them (so far). Thus, they cowardly indulge in character assassination as they invoke travesties of justice and Constitutional rights, always under the pretext of seeking scientific transparency. Since one man’s sorrow is another man’s joy, the hatred content of PubPeer and Retraction Watch sells like hot cakes, poisoning the waters of scientific endeavor at a fast pace.

If the PubPeer or Retraction Watch contributors were truly passionate about transparency they would strive to publish their comments in the professional journals where the challenged papers appeared, while alerting the challenged author so he/she gets a chance to rebut in the same forum. Sadly, the haters often cannot even afford to reveal their real names for fear of making a fool of themselves, let along subjecting their hatred-driven pieces to scientific peer review!

Rather than writing hundreds of erratic pages filled with anger and confusion, exploiting the blogs to desperately find their role in society, the PubPeer and Retraction Watch haters should strive to understand the scientific issues they so vehemently attack and, once they feel they have something to contribute, follow the channels of scientific discourse that have been in place for hundreds of years. Of course, that is much much more arduous than commenting on the hate blogs.

Last but not least, universities and research institutes are not without blame in brewing this scientific McCarthyism. Their fear of losing federal funding unless they show enough zeal in prosecuting wrongdoers has often led to witch hunts where due process is not followed. The scientist is often subject to a veritable auto-da-fe with no Constitutional guarantees and is finally coerced by the federal funding agency (NIH, and to a lesser extent NSF) to enter into a nolo contendere agreement that marks the end of the scientific career and sometimes the civil death of the person. Contrary to the uninformed remarks of the Retraction Watch haters, the McCarthyian prosecution of David Baltimore and Thereza Imanishi-Kari (that ended in dismissal of all charges) exposed this draconian process and its ruthless disregard of the rule of law.

Standard
Adam Marcus, Character Assassination, Civil Death, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Fraud, Hatred, Ivan Oransky, Office of Research Integrity, Peer Review, Research Integrity, Retraction, Retraction Watch, Science, Scientific Misconduct

Debunking Retraction Watch and its Easy Route to Fame

Science is undeniably hard. First you come to grips with failure in the lab and when you finally believe you got it right, another front opens up: the quest to pass peer review and get your findings published in a good journal. These days, a new cloud looms over the embattled researcher right at the end of the publication pipeline: Post publication peer review (PPPR). PPPR has become the new way to challenge publications, at least that is what the self-published blog “Retraction Watch” by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky would like us to believe as they relentlessly report retractions and other sins and ruin reputations right and left. Calling PPPR peer review is of course a misnomer, since no real established peers are known to be involved, or enable their credentials to be checked, and no serious editorial participation of peers is involved at this post publication stage.  PPPR is, for all we know and from what we have seen, a trigger-happy operation, conducted by a horde mostly hiding in anonymity and driven by anger and rage, seeking to get their easy share of fame.

In essence, the McCarthyian agenda of PPPR is drawn by journalists (it takes all kinds) and by angry people who, often emboldended by anonymity, comment in Retraction Watch (one of them signs “Hater Jonny”) and in other aberrations, as they hysterically seek to find a place in history by vilifying scientists. Marcus, Oransky and the hatred troupe are a very diverse bunch: while “Hater Jonny” writes only seldom, other haters like “JATdS” or “Neuroskeptic” contribute abundantly, writing veritable essays as they keep sending scientists to the scaffolds.

What motivates Marcus, Oransky and the post-publication transparency champions to embark in their retraction watchdog crusade?  Not the quest for transparency, of course, otherwise they would play by the rules of science and demand that the post-publication challengers submit their comments to the incumbent journals seeking publication which would be granted provided, of course, that their comments successfully pass peer review. Transparency or fair play would then dictate that the author who has presumably sinned be given the chance to retort within the same forum and subject to the same rules of publication.

The motivation of the post-publication transparency champions is likely to be very different. Doing great science is hard, and yet there are easier routes to fame and one such route is to “bring down the phonies”, to paraphrase the novel “The Catcher in the Rye”. The frame of mind of the transparency champions is more akin to “I cannot do great science (or anything creative for that matter) so those who can surely must be phonies, right?” Wrong!

If this sounds familiar it is simply because it fits into an ancient psychological pattern (“sour grapes”), first illustrated by Aesop and probably as old as human civilization.  It took a grotesque and tragic turn in the John Lennon assassination at the hands of Mark David Chapman, a criminal obsessed with “The Catcher in the Rye” and the “anti-phoniness” message.

Let us hope the science journals recover their lost ground and drive away the angry hordes as they regain the transparency territory. Scientific McCarthyism will only come to an end when the scientific establishment tightens up peer review.

Standard