Science integrity consultant, PhD. #ImageForensics #sleuthmaxxing @METRICStanford affiliate / https://xitter.cf/t.co/2xH3WdXTFr / Patreon
San Francisco, CA
Joined October 2013
- Tweets76.4K
- Following44.2K
- Followers144K
- Likes129K
Pinned Tweet
'Elisabeth Bik is a Dutch microbiologist. [...]
Then she opened a PhD thesis that had lifted text from somewhere else, and her eye caught something different.
A duplicated image.
She sat down and went through 20,621 published biomedical papers. By eye.'
facebook.com/WeirdbutTruex/p…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
A study of articles suspected of being associated with “paper mills”in the field of molecular cancer shows the papers cite other paper mill papers to inflate their metrics. These practices can amplify unreliable findings and slow scientific progress. ow.ly/1izn51008lE
ALT : Heat map showing yearly percentages of flagged papers across leading molecular cancer research journals (0.6 paper mill probability threshold).
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Site de pubmed ce matin : quand la terminologie est décidée par executive order !
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
How do you tell if authors fabricated their research results? Sometimes: they just tell you. Read, e.g., this caption carefully.
Another banger of a post by my friend Nihar B. Shah on his blog, where he found at least 20+ such #ICLR2027 submissions:
researchonresearch.blog/2026…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Today I am sharing a new preprint and accompanying blog post. Hundreds of published papers include impossible western blots showing protein expression in cell lines that have deleted or mutated genes. These clumsy mistakes are widespread and repeated by LLMs.
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
I know this pic has been posted by others already, but... what on earth @RCPhysicians ?! 😱
#NoMoreManels
#DiversityAndInclusion
"the Editor does not have sufficient evidence to retract the article"
What WOULD qualify as sufficient evidence, one might ask.
#ImageForensics
#ThisImageIsFine
doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.20…
pubpeer.com/publications/981…
Not sure what new 'sufficient' evidence came to light (perhaps it was just my tweet?), but the article has been retracted:
sciencedirect.com/science/ar…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
"Award-winning microscopy image disqualified over AI use."
nature.com/articles/d41586-0…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Journals have retracted four neural tube studies from researchers at The University of Maryland following an internal investigation that identified image duplications and other data integrity issues.
By @claulopezneuro
thetransmitter.org/academia/…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
This must be a very interesting seminar: "Errors and Misconduct in Biomedical Research Images" with the brilliant @MicrobiomDigest hosted by German Bioimaging Group gerbi-gmb.de/teams/ymia/
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Most important, we want to get this model into as many scientists’ hands as we can.
Today, we’re announcing that 10,000 scientists will get the highest usage tier access to Gemini 4 Argon in Google @antigravity free of charge for 6 months.
Apply here: forms.gle/WvmBbPvRbpKG1BPn9
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
OpenAI withdraws three preprints 1 day after releasing 722 manuscripts on unsolved math problems.
retractionwatch.com/2026/10/…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
A Wyoming microbiology graduate student from China has been arrested on accusations she poisoned the tea of a colleague who had pending patents and with whom she didn't get along, then tried to flee the country after police questioned her. cbsn.ws/4zxi9t1
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
As an Editor, in past ~6mo, we are receiving an avalanche of unsolicited review articles (“scoping” “systematic”, narrative, NOS) on topics and ?s NO ONE EVER has asked and clearly with heavy AI lift. Even the cover letters all read the same…alarming and sad. #publishing
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
We're just days away from revealing the shortlist for the 2026 Maddox Prize for standing up for science. While we wait, we're sharing what receiving the award has meant to a select few of our previous winners.
The Maddox Prize 2026 is supported by the @royalsociety
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
None of this year's science Nobel Prizes have gone to women.
The number of these prizes to go to women remains at 27 out of more than 600.
See how many you can name in our quiz: nature.com/immersive/d41586-…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Obviously... but those facing scrutiny are clearly unhappy about it.
That a Nobel Prize winner has an ego so fragile he can't imagine his papers might contain errors (or worse), and instead attacks those who find them, says it all. If he can't handle scrutiny, who can?
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
The Nobel Prize Whiner went on stage to complain about PubPeer, Retraction Watch, and Elisabeth Bik (@MicrobiomDigest)... all of whom are living rent free in his head.
Is there something about winning a Nobel Prize that makes some laureates embrace increasingly kooky ideas?
