Twitter | Search | |
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
Figures 3 of both papers? Unexpectedly similar (except for different cell line names and some switched/mirrored blots).
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
And Figures 5. Liu et al. (right) tossed in some mice pictures, but otherwise, these are remarkably similar.
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
The textual similarities are striking as well. Generated using
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
So what happened here? Did one group of authors steal the results from another group? For that it is useful to look at manuscript submission and publication dates.
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
Left paper (gastric cancer): Manuscript received 11 March 2018, accepted 08 May 2018, published online 17 August 2018. Right paper (lung cancer): Manuscript received 2 July 2018, accepted 3 September 2018, published online 10 October 2018.
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
The gastric paper is definitely older (submitted first), but the lung paper was submitted before the gastric paper was published online. So it was not simply plagiarized by copying an online paper.
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
There are at least 2 possible scenarios: 1. The gastric paper could have been 'stolen' during peer review 2. Both papers could have been bought from the same paper mill, which might have accidentally sold the same paper twice
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @nirmalya22
I have no further evidence to know what happened here exactly (will report both papers, though). But big thanks to Nirmalya Saha , who brought this to my attention. Thank you for your sharp eye!
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
OMG I just found 2 more papers belonging to this set, both published in 2017, but describing colon cancer and cervical. They have similar values in tables and some shared Western Blots. Holy crap. This is getting weird. Doing this real-time, folks!
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik
Update! This is a set of (at least) EIGHT papers, from different authors, different hospitals, different cancers, different protein expressions. But with identical Kaplan-Meier curves, tables values, line graphs. See e.g.
Reply Retweet Like More
Mike Jeziorski May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
I don't understand how this can happen in the current day. The group headed by Harold Garner created the Deja Vu database more than ten years ago and showed how to detect plagiarized text and figures. I thought wholesale duplication was a thing of the past.
Reply Retweet Like
David Bautista May 28
Inside job from editors in those journals? Because the peer review should detect that.
Reply Retweet Like
Patrick A. Jansen 🐾 May 29
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
Can you please list the paper doi's? These papers should of course be retracted immediately. The lead authors should be fired. And the co-authors? They might not exist. Or they may not even know that these papers bear their names. My own experience. 👇🏻
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 29
Replying to @JansenLab
Here is a PubPeer link that shows you all 8 papers:
Reply Retweet Like
bin fang May 29
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
Wow. Hats off to your skills. How did you find the other six?
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 29
Replying to @BFTJPRC
I searched for exact matches of some of the table numbers in Google Scholar.
Reply Retweet Like
Brett J. Gall Jun 16
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
Note: at least one of those journals (oncotarget) has been basically listed as a predatory journal with questionable "peer" review.
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik Jun 16
Replying to @brettjgall
Yes, I am aware. See my blog post from last year:
Reply Retweet Like
Irma Aguilar-Delfin May 28
Replying to @MicrobiomDigest
How did you find the additional six? I worship your powers, specially because the force (for the luminous side!) is so strong in you.
Reply Retweet Like
Elisabeth Bik May 29
Replying to @dyctiostelium
I searched in Google Scholar for the numbers in the tables.
Reply Retweet Like