Chapter 1: The Quest for Scientific Integrity

Elisabeth Bik dedicates her time to scrutinizing scientific publications, particularly in the life sciences, to identify instances of image manipulation. Essentially, she plays a reverse version of “spot the difference,” focusing on identifying similarities in fraudulent works masquerading as credible science. Alongside other online vigilantes, she tirelessly works to rectify the inaccuracies in the body of knowledge that underpins our understanding of the world.

Bik has taken on the role of a self-appointed detective in the realm of scientific fraud, akin to Sherlock Holmes in her field. Her journey began with concerns about plagiarism, which she noticed before it became easily detectable. After discovering that her own research had been copied during a Google Scholar search, she delved deeper into uncovering other cases of academic dishonesty. In one notable case, she found a PhD dissertation that not only included plagiarized text but also reused images throughout, attempting to present them as different results. “The image was mirrored or rotated, but it had a unique smear that I recognized,” she recounts.

Upon reporting the fraudulent thesis, which led to its retraction, Bik realized she had discovered a new passion. “I was good at recognizing these patterns,” she mentions, prompting her to dedicate more time to this endeavor. Soon, evenings and weekends were spent poring over research papers, eagerly returning home from her day job to continue her investigations.

In a short time, Bik compiled an extensive catalog of fraudulent research. By 2016, she co-authored a paper detailing her findings, which revealed that among over 20,000 biomedical research articles she examined, 4% featured manipulated images. She reported these 800 papers and has continued her mission of investigation and correction ever since.

One of the first papers she flagged was authored by Min-Jean Yin, who led the Pfizer California cancer lab during the paper’s publication. It contained replicated images from western blot tests, which are crucial for detecting specific protein molecules. Altering these images essentially distorts the data, potentially skewing the results to support a flawed hypothesis.

After notifying the scientific community about these discrepancies on forums like PubPeer and the science misconduct blog For Better Science, Pfizer terminated Yin’s employment and launched a thorough investigation into her research history, resulting in multiple retractions of her published works in cancer therapeutics.

Bik is highly active on PubPeer and Twitter, where she shares colorful graphics highlighting instances of image manipulation to her nearly 40,000 followers. “I was a quiet microbiologist until a few years ago when I joined Twitter,” she chuckles.

Chapter 2: A New Path in Science

After completing her PhD in the Netherlands and spending 15 years at Stanford, Bik and her husband opted to pursue personal projects rather than work for companies. For Bik, investigating research fraud transcends mere hobby; “I’ve found a niche where I believe I can make a significant impact,” she states. “It feels like a calling.”

She often chooses open-access journals for her investigations due to their accessibility, as well as papers suggested by fellow scientists. “I’m focusing on previously identified cases of image manipulation and seeking out more papers by the same authors, even in different journals,” she explains.

“My intention isn’t to punish anyone; it’s to rectify scientific inaccuracies.” Living on savings, Bik estimates she has about a year to continue her investigations and hopes to monetize her expertise as a consultant for journals concerned with scientific misconduct.

Published research in esteemed academic journals is highly valued within the scientific community, as career advancement, respect, and financial rewards often depend on publication reputation. The most prestigious journals typically publish research that offers significant insights rather than minor additions. Unfortunately, not all scientists achieve this through diligence; some resort to manipulating images to present more favorable results or reusing data to support misleading claims.

Other researchers may invest years and substantial funding into building on false foundations. “I aim to correct the science, not to discipline individuals,” Bik clarifies. Despite her efforts in uncovering manipulations, she estimates that only 30% of the flagged papers have been corrected or retracted. “By sharing my findings on Twitter, I hope to achieve two main goals,” she elaborates. “First, to pressure journals to respond, akin to those viral videos of mistreatment on airplanes. Second, to raise awareness about the prevalence of fraud, helping journals recognize what to look for in submissions.”

Scientific journals often struggle to effectively address misconduct. Sometimes this is understandable; retracting a published paper necessitates contacting numerous authors who may have moved on, become unresponsive, or lack original data. This process demands significant time and patience to ascertain whether a mistake was genuine or intentional misconduct, often at the expense of the journal's profitability.

Yet, the lack of action can also be unwarranted. Journals may dismiss complaints that aren’t submitted correctly via outdated online systems or, more concerning, those that come from anonymous sources. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which monitors scientific retractions, comments: “I wish scientists, journals, and universities that disregard anonymous complaints could reflect on the importance of whistle-blowers.”

Due to the critical nature of reputation in science, anonymity is often crucial. Much of the investigative work is performed by active scientists who fear retribution from their institutions or ostracism from their peers. One such investigator, known as Smut Clyde, dedicates considerable time to uncovering irregularities, aware that their anonymous contributions may go unacknowledged. “There are numerous scientists engaged in fraud. Identifying one or two isn’t particularly impactful; it’s merely a drop in the ocean,” they conveyed to OneZero. “Our hope is to increase awareness that the ocean is already quite full and ultimately shift the incentives in the long term.”

Bik has gained recognition and respect within the scientific misconduct community, not just for the volume of her work but also for her transparency in reporting under her own name. In this sense, she serves as a representative for many who cannot voice their concerns. “I receive new requests daily,” she admits.

“I hope more individuals join me in the fight against image manipulation in research; we need more hands on deck. There are countless papers, and it’s essential that we maintain scientific integrity.”

It’s the volunteers, the enthusiasts who take it upon themselves to uphold accountability in science, who will ultimately drive change. Just as Conan Doyle’s fictional detective inspired reform in law enforcement, perhaps the dedication and sharp observation of Bik and her fellow sleuths will encourage scientific institutions to adopt similar practices.

The video title is EXPOSED: Fake Scientists Infiltrating Top Journals! - YouTube, providing insights into the alarming prevalence of scientific fraud.