Slashdot Mirror

There are plenty more errors where that came from. Here's a particularly egregious example of a study where every single statistic appears to be wrong, yet there has been no action taken on it:
https://www.pubpeer.com/public...

Except that this is not science but an obvious and blatant fraud.

A list of his articles on PubPeer: https://pubpeer.com/search?q=s... Conclude from the comments what you will.

From the article:

One possible charge is defamation, Roumel says, because he believes several commentsâ"some now removed by PubPeerâ(TM)s moderatorsâ"stray from the facts to insinuate deliberate misconduct, in violation of PubPeerâ(TM)s posting guidelines.

The scientist and his lawyer suspect foul play by anonymous person(s) who allegedly defamed him by posting ad hominem attacks in their pubpeer comments and then distributed those comment pages to both universities associated with him.

Any criticism of his work should be valid and fact based and that should be enforced by the site's moderators.

I am reading through the comments related to his papers on pubpeer. I haven't found any personal attacks. May be there are some in the comments I have not read yet. However, what I find is a number of papers with blatantly manipulated images, use of the same image to represent different experiments in different papers and even a combination of the two. His defamation lawsuit has no legs and the university has every right to rescind its offer. In fact they would have been complicit if they did not do so. I predict that Dr. Sarkar's next discovery will be the Streisand effect.

Additional links: A big discussion has taken place on PubPeer following a pre-publication arXiv release of a paper (full disclosure: I'm a co-author on the second version of this paper). The paper is well worth a read, and should be coming out soon in PLoS One.

ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6812
Pubpeer: https://pubpeer.com/publicatio...

Do you think that economists are incapable of analyzing trends?

Well, maybe not all economists, but given that they find that the numbers of accidents already increased before countdown installation, I'm not so sure about these ones.

The reuse was in both articles. From PubPeer;

It does however have several examples of image reuse which might be of interest to PubPeer members and readers.

- Fig. 2F is a slightly cropped version of the cell microscopy image in Fig. 6D top left.

- Fig. 6D top right, the cell microscopy image is a slightly cropped version of supplementary Fig. s5, top right. The cells in 6D are labelled as "h-ESO-NT1 Ph" yet in figure s5 they are labelled to be "hESO-7". We understand the former to inherit caffeine-treated somatic nuclei whereas the latter are original stem cells.

Under pressure to assemble the figures for rapid publication, one can understand making a cut and paste figure assembly mistake. Nevertheless it should be noted that image cropping does take extra work.

- Figure S6 top centre and top right are the same image.

The second article was mentioned to draw parallels between image reuse and scientific misconduct.