Mircea Ivan @OxygenIvan Twitter profile

Pinned Tweet

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

10 months

2019, at the Nobel Banquet with Bill Kaelin, celebrating the discovery of cellular O2 sensors, HIF Prolyl Hydroxylases.

4

3

45

Last Seen Profiles

@AonGirlfreen

@stw_pdg

@og_triple_og

@AonGirlfreen

@JakiRollins

@ConchaFawv

@bokeplokalmalam

@CoachChuckPete

@timppuk

@mishevskat

@beatushranc

@bokeplokalmalam

@TDF_UA

@helectoplasta

@IkeIrby46

@Lyondra9

@RichE_Comedian

@RMccoggle43368

@bokeplokalmalam

@WorldPrayr

@MarcLMusic1

@richard20211212

@ChassyMedia

@Official_ALNST

@Biduan_viral

@rkivedisc

@nikofans

@ETOpera

@K__Venom

@dog_person20

@bokeplokalmalam

@UCSF_BCHSI

@Odyssey_Toys

@rkivedisc

@PXGEsports

@ArabianMancs

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 years

@gaetormom I grew up in the grey communist Romania, the Iron curtain fell when I was 23. The 18 yo me would have dismissed any description of my life as a 50 year old US scientist as a hallucination. The message would convey to myself? “Enjoy an Amazing Ride” ( ok, 4 words technically)

3

174

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

Dear all, as promised I am attaching a very, very rough “manifesto” draft, with the goal to initiate a real movement against science misconduct on multiple fronts. I apologize in advance about the format ( for some reason I could not generate a thread). Those among you who need

2

45

129

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

Scientific fraud is not a victimless crime.

John Arnold

@JohnArnoldFndtn

3 months

2006 paper on cause of Alzheimer’s is the field's 4th most cited paper ever. But the author faked the data and it was later retracted. This wasted many years & $287+ million in funding as the field chased a dead end. Scientific fraud must be criminalized.

44

357

2K

5

38

128

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

@archi_tradition @EvenSkild Visiting a place and actually living there. Two very, very different things.

2

0

101

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

3 months

I said it numerous times and I repeat it. The deluge of manuscripts submitted to journals indexed by PubMed has long ago surpassed the review capacity of our scientific community. Not enough qualified people and no incentives to spend time that you don’t have. A few necessary

7

24

87

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

It’s outrageous that people who have a long history of fraudulent papers have not suffered ANY real consequences. Worse, they keep having open doors to publish in “big”journals, receive enormous salaries invited to give keynote talks, can still get public funding. THIS MUST STOP!

Retraction Watch

@RetractionWatch

5 months

"Academic Fraud Is a Waste of Taxpayer Dollars: More transparency is needed to hold researchers to account," says Bloomberg.

2

19

42

4

18

83

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

24 days

@slavovLab Nikolai, this is a potentially major finding. With the obvious caveat, and I am sure you’ll be the first to agree, that it needs to be independently replicated. Couple of quick questions: 1) For a given protein, out of 1000 molecules, how many would depart from the canonical

3

81

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

3 years

Carl Sagan, 25 years ago...

2

29

68

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

The pressure for productivity is killing reliable research. We have the same brains as in 1970, but among us are people who run immense labs, publish 10 times more, each paper is far more complex. Such labs are disproportionately represented in “high profile” journals and as such

Gustavo Monasterio O.

@gamonasterioo

2 months

The value of ‘wasting time’ on deep thinking is often overlooked in a scientific ecosystem increasingly tainted by Wall Street’s productivity mindset.

49

2K

6K

1

13

69

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

@TheRealBuzz People who remember July 1969 should feel privileged to have witnessed arguably the most significant moment in human history. For as long as our civilization endures, Moon Landing will be a historic watershed, as other events in our history books gradually fade into oblivion.

4

67

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

Musings on the recent high profile science misconduct cases from Harvard and elsewhere. Researcher X publishes several “high impact papers” and as a result secures big grants then a coveted position at a top institution. Years later, it turns out that several (if not most) of

4

14

65

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

AI-generated diagram, errors lead to retraction – RW. One of the bazillion examples of just how “porous” scientific literature has become. There is hardly any filter protecting our scientific record from blatant BS, self-serving exaggerations and such.

Giant rat penis redux: AI-generated diagram, errors lead to retraction

In an episode reminiscent of the AI-generated graphic of a rat with a giant penis, another paper with an anatomically incorrect image has been retracted after it attracted attention on social media…

retractionwatch.com

4

20

63

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

@MicrobiomDigest @PubPeer Journals should stop accepting so easily “replacement” figures and issue an erratum or corrigendum. These are likely to be as fraudulent as the previous ones, it’s just that they do not contain overlaps.

4

57

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

all sectors of society since all of us are affected by the quality of biomedical research & literature. @jillykid @JAByrneSci @Thatsregrettab1 @_captainscience @mumumouse @MicrobiomDigest @jim_bouldin @RetractionWatch @addictedtoigno1 @Adrian_H @DrLizaMD @AMCELL @Spottingthespot

9

57

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

these papers are based on manipulated and/or faulty data. Papers are retracted, but the career goes on, give or take a polite slat on the wrist. What message does this send to young researchers? How solid are the foundations of science these days?

3

2

52

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 month

I keep remembering the words of Carl Sagan about science being our candle in the dark. In absence of its light we are headed for the abyss. Worse still, there are many famous academics who are holding their own “light” of pseudoscience for the unsuspecting public. People with

7

11

51

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

Dear likeminded friends, as I was alluding recently, I am planning on starting a society/foundation with the preliminary name Agora, dedicated to fighting pseudoscience. At this point, everything is open for discussions. Will return shortly with objectives, thoughts about funding

2

14

42

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 years

@DavidSteensma One of the many pieces of evidence that putting the equal sign between the IF of journal and the value of a paper is a no no . Father time lifts a good result from the noise and hype.

1

41

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

8 months

Donors have poured billions into research. They should consider supporting the cause of science cleanup by funding sleuths. These people work on tiny Patreon donations and contribute more to science than most famous institutions. How can we reach out to philanthropists and

2

11

40

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

3 months

The (very strong) case for criminalizing scientific misconduct · I might add corruption of students and defective mentorship, which is particularly bad for teaching institutions of these stature.

The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct

For a crime that could cost millions of lives, universities have failed to police themselves

chris-said.io

1

15

38

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

@MicrobiomDigest What do Nature’s editors argue is a reasonable upper limit of “reviewability”? 60 supplements ? Or maybe 100? We should come to our senses and accept the obvious: the race for Nature papers has gone beyond ridiculous. A paper in 1950, 1970, heck even 2000, could be called that, a

0

1

38

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

@rlmcelreath @GustavNilsonne As I argued before, repetitive impactful science fraud should be be treated as felony. The taxpayers cannot be robbed indefinitely under the tutelage of universities. There must be accountability, otherwise our children will inherit noise rather than knowledge.

1

5

35

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

3 months

Nature/Science papers these days: you convince 3-4 people who have limited access to your original data, even less bandwidth and broad expertise. Then that’s it, it’s a “fact” , you get grants and you promote. Ten years later it’s more likely your stuff has not been reproduced,

1

5

35

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

Many years ago Upton Sinclair anticipated the current crisis in academic life science: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” This crisis is worsened by the absence of specific laws and institutions that can

3

14

34

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

Scientific Fraud Is Slippery to Catch—but Easier to Combat | WIRED. Well, I agree with a lot of the content but the title conveys the wrong message. Science fraud is very hard to combat. The academic & publishing system makes it virtually impossible.

Scientific Fraud Is Slippery to Catch—but Easier to Combat

Fakery spans “beautified” data, photoshopped images, and “paper mills.” Experts and institutions are employing tools to spot deceptive research and mitigate its reach.

www.wired.com

1

10

33

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

@fasc1nate When we think our life is tough, talking to a Holocaust survivor should help put things into perspective.

1

0

30

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

“Unfortunately, when we contact authors about concerns that have been raised about their Science papers, we are often met with defensiveness and denial. That needs to change” ⁦⁦ @MicrobiomDigest ⁩ ⁦ @Thatsregrettab1 ⁩ ⁦⁦ @DrNancyOlivieri ⁩

Energy in 2023

The new year 2023 arrives with promising developments in fusion research. In December, scientists at the US National Ignition Facility (NIF) focused 2.05 megajoules of laser light onto a capsule of...

www.science.org

5

8

30

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

3 months

The quality of science is eroded with every grant given to dysfunctional or fraudulent teams, with every paper accepted by big journals from such teams despite mountains of PubPeer evidence. With every pompous press release by their home institution, with every platform given to

Science Magazine

@ScienceMagazine

3 months

" … the public’s trust in science has been undermined when scientists with large public platforms have failed to state strongly enough that their pronouncements are based on science that remains in flux," writes H. Holden Thorp in a new #ScienceEditorial .

27

19

86

2

17

30

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

Shouldn’t the @NIH have a “reproducibility office”? Essentially a lab that repeats key experiments in “just published” high profile new papers? Prioritize “hyper productive” groups, sensational claims, labs with a “history”. Even if cost> $100m, now we waste bn/yr in bad data.

4

5

28

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

The magnitude of scientific fraud is orders of magnitude higher than currently presented. If we had 1000 x @MicrobiomDigest the number of problematic papers would be commensurately higher.

Jan Vollert

@TimPnin

2 years

What @MicrobiomDigest tweets regularly scares me. There is no way I could ever even vaguely guess any of these things as a reviewer/reader. If image fraud is so permeating, numbers (which seem so much easier to doctor) should be tempered with on scales I don't want to think about

0

3

15

3

5

28

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

And perhaps most importantly, we can all agree that the entire society will eventually suffer the consequences. @TheSkepticalSc2 @Thatsregrettab1 @ArbitraryEffect @MicrobiomDigest @DanielBurrus @JAByrneSci @metapredict @_captainscience @ivanoransky @BillAckman @addictedtoigno1

1

2

27

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

Dear all, here is the link to the 2nd draft of "AGORA manifesto". Many, many thanks to dozens of people who provided valuable input (I tried to incorporate as much as I could) based on valuable public input. Below is the link to the Google doc, please RT as much as you can. Based

4

12

28

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 years

@ArchitGhosh1 @OdedRechavi Agree. RT-PCR works well for RNAseq validation when fold changes are dramatic and the control gene is stable in that context. However, many biological responses involve subtle (but coordinated) expression changes and various stresses affect control genes (e. g. hypoxia - GAPDH).

2

0

26

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

18 days

#NewProfilePic

1

27

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

A superstar who should be in prison.

Misconduct concerns, possible drug risks should stop major stroke trial, whistleblowers say

Did star neuroscientist Berislav Zlokovic manipulate data that support NIH-funded stroke trial and important Alzheimer’s research?

www.science.org

4

8

26

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

25 days

The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists. This was written in 2016. The problem has gotten much worse since then and nothing has been done to prevent it.

The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists

www.vox.com

5

4

26

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

10 months

@Vali_Ghincolov Îmi amintesc când ai fost arestat, Vali. Puțini oameni ca tine, jos pălăria!!!

1

0

23

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

8 months

This one is the most outrageous of all, all manners of faked figures in most of his papers , going back to the days when he was doing the experiments Hats off, @MicrobiomDigest

Top Harvard Medical School Neuroscientist Accused of Research Misconduct | News | The Harvard...

Top Harvard Medical School Neuroscientist Accused of Research Misconduct | News | The Harvard Crimson

www.thecrimson.com

4

5

25

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 years

Last year, during #NobelPrize week, celebrating the recognition of #oxygen sensors discovery.

2

1

24

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 month

@peterrhague The psychological consequences of long term separation from Earth, friends, familiar environment. I am more optimistic about solving the engineering obstacles than I am about addressing the challenges of human mind severed from its home.

2

1

23

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

This is an essential part of the solution: people should be afraid to commit fraud. The absence of real consequences is tantamount to incentivizing fraud. Carrot without stick.

Retraction Watch

@RetractionWatch

4 months

“Academic Fraud Is a Waste of Taxpayer Dollars: More transparency is needed to hold researchers to account,” says Bloomberg.

2

9

28

2

5

23

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

@WinterCFC @Olympics When the GOAT bows to you it must be special!

1

0

23

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

The word format, please DM me. Please also let me know what might be the best “place” for us to have a detailed discussion. The only “rule” at this point is polite, constructive conversation. Please RT and diseminate, this is the type of discussion that requires open minds from

3

23

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 month

@talalrahwan @Nature I remember the times (around 2000) when I was a believer in the relevance of metrics. Given enough time and enough wrong incentives, humans find ways to pervert any concept, no matter how sound.

1

22

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

21 days

In 2015 Newcastle scientist Professor Paul Dent made cancer and ebola breakthroughs Unfortunately, @MicrobiomDigest @Thatsregrettab1 and others don’t want this to happen. They keep making a big deal out of a few manipulated figures (a few dozens or

Newcastle scientist Professor Paul Dent makes cancer and ebola breakthrough

Professor Paul Dent who grew up in Wideopen and graduated with a degree from Newcastle University says he has found a new way of target tumours

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

6

3

22

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

@itmorar Ma întreb, cei care zic ca era mai bine înainte își mai aduc aminte de asta ?….

6

2

22

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

@MicrobiomDigest @BostonGlobe Lost in the article are the countless cases of manipulated figures collected on PubPeer. The number of figures that were “accelerated” to satisfy / impress reviewers is shocking. And it may be only the tip of the iceberg (correct, Dr. Bik?).

0

22

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

@emilyakopp An agency with a $50bn/yr budget that does not have a investigative branch?…Perhaps this is why it keeps funding folks with a lot of fraudulent papers and never holds them accountable

0

2

21

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

dear all, as many of you suggested, I have created a google doc for public comments. Please circulate and let's take it to the next level. Much appreciated.

Agora Manifesto

The crisis in life sciences is real, growing, and likely deeper than we can imagine at this point. Given the long-term implications, it is only responsible to recognize that this is one of the most...

docs.google.com

2

7

20

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 year

@kareem_carr It took a pandemic to bring Dr. Kariko’s discovery to light. Imagine for a second that Covid19 never happened: mRNA vaccines would still be under development in a biotech company. Dr. Kariko would still be unknown to the public, UPenn would not be bragging about the 2023 Nobel.

1

2

20

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

When science is done correctly: 1. Most results should be negative. 2. Most efforts should be spent to falsify promising data (i.e. prove them wrong). Alas, the system is geared towards showing that everything works, The result? Noise rather than reproducible usable data.

Journal of Trial and Error

@jtrialerror

4 months

Nature interviewed editor-in-chief Sarahanne Field and co-founder Stefan Gaillard @sdmgaillard about our Journal! Check it here: #trialanderror #metascience #openscience

0

11

23

0

1

20

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

27 days

Guess where?

5

0

20

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

7 months

@MicrobiomDigest Even the glove is identical :-) Same folds, same position of the fingers, etc :-)

3

1

20

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

No significant consequences, no deterrent against the expansion of fraudulent data. How close are we from not being able to distinguish between reality and noise based on published claims? @SmutClyde @MicrobiomDigest @DrNancyOlivieri @oliviawriting @Thatsregrettab1 plsRT

Dr. David Sanders

@DavidSandersRep

2 years

“I do not believe that the institution has addressed this appropriately,”says DavidSanders,a molecular virologist @LifeAtPurdue & 1 of the signers of the letter.“It’s unbelievable that this is not grounds for more severe consequences.” #research #integrity

1

2

9

1

8

19

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

@cshperspectives @TepavcevicVanja The good scenario: Other journals follow suit. IF does not count anymore. One can subsequently add data to the study until it becomes a solid body of work, with community input. @eLife @NIH (The bad scenario: eLife IF “collapses”, papers don’t count much for grants…Hope not)

2

19

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

Reposting this, with an intent to reach as many interested people as possible. During the past decade I’ve spent close to 10k hours learning how to integrate genomic datasets from dozens of public databases. At this point I can generate “literature-agnostic “portraits” of

1

7

18

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

10 months

Why are journals reluctant to retract? EICs know the magnitude of the problem (otherwise they would be plainly stupid). They are aware that without fakes a good chunk of their customers/authors vanish. EICs are under pressure to grow the business. R/T if you agree or comment.

2

6

18

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

6 months

@MicrobiomDigest Tip of the iceberg. “Big” lab, huge expectations, boss barely there.

2

0

18

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

10 months

Few random thoughts about making papers reliable. 1) Huge labs and high productivity should be prevented, not rewarded. 2. The standard for indexing journals should go up, way up. At least half of the journals should be delisted. There is simply not enough credible expertise in

8

4

18

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

it never gets old to look back at these unique moments. ⁦ @NobelPrize ⁩ Banquet 2019 The classy Oscar.

1

0

17

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

“Science can be self-correcting — but only if we invest in making it so”.

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

Nature - Borrowing the idea of ‘bug bounties’ from the technology industry could provide a systematic way to detect and correct the errors that litter the scientific literature.

www.nature.com

2

11

17

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

A reason why this ocean of junk gets published? Editors in chief greedy to keep their paid position accept anything that superficially looks like a paper. The pace at which legit science can realistically be generated is too slow for the ocean of journals.

1

3

17

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 year

The pure bliss of a day at Lake Tahoe.

0

5

16

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

Cassava Sciences exposes a dark, ugly corner of the Alzheimer’s disease world

With resignations of top leaders, Cassava Sciences exposes a dark, ugly corner of the Alzheimer’s...

With resignations of top leaders, Cassava Sciences exposes a dark, ugly corner of the Alzheimer’s disease world, @adamfeuerstein writes.

www.statnews.com

1

6

17

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

22 days

Just in case you were wondering why publishers keep sprouting new journals and do nothing to distance themselves from fraudsters.

Mushtaq Bilal, PhD

@MushtaqBilalPhD

23 days

Academic publisher Elsevier's profit margin compared to Apple, Google, and Microsoft Apple: 28% Google: 25% Microsoft: 34% Elsevier: 37% with a revenue of $3.9 billion. Elsevier's payment to academic authors and reviewers: $0

90

1K

5K

1

4

17

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

re: Scopus-indexed Journals “Every year, Scopus receives more than 3,500 NEW journal titles proposed for inclusion in its database”. I am at a loss for words. Who reviews these “journals”? How much trustworthy information is generated every year?

What are Scopus-indexed Journals | Researcher.Life

Explore the importance of Scopus-indexed journals for researchers. Learn about Scopus's rigorous selection process, benefits, and tools to verify Scopus-indexed journals.

researcher.life

0

7

17

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

“More is not better: the developing crisis of scientific publishing”. In fact, we can safely say “More is worse!” Too many journals, too many papers, too few reviewers with adequate competence, time and impartiality.

More is not better: the developing crisis of scientific publishing - International Science Council

In this blog, Geoffrey Boulton and Moumita Koley argue that establishing fair and transparent standards in science publishing is vital for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific...

council.science

2

6

17

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 year

Mount Evans, Colorado, above 14,000ft, gasping for air. Meanwhile, the locals were having a good time. @RockyMtnInst @CorinaCg3 @abpatru @alinazamfir01

1

2

15

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

“THE FOUR FORMER lab members who allege Zlokovic pushed them and others to manipulate data paint a picture of a pressure cooker environment in which their boss expected new data almost every week, always in line with his hypotheses”. Bullying to generate “science”.

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

A superstar who should be in prison.

4

8

26

3

16

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

Andrew Akbashev on LinkedIn: #science #research #phd #chemistry | 115 comments

Yes, hype should NOT be in papers. Your results should speak for themselves. But there are publishing practices that I do not agree with. I’ve been reading… | 115 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

0

2

16

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 year

@lpachter Let’s hope to see more papers that start with “No evidence …” in top journals. Solid negative data should are now more needed than ever. @CharlesMBrenner @DavidSandersRep @Thatsregrettab1 @MicrobiomDigest @gunsnrosesgirl3 @_captainscience @mixich @deevybee @quantumlandbook

1

4

15

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

If people brag about H index, how about an R-index, or PubPeer index? Why only the “good”? Mind you, what’s on PubPeer is most likely a fraction of the dark side. Also, at what point will “hyper productivity” become counted as a negative?

Jim Bouldin

@jim_bouldin

4 months

FoSci – The emerging field of Forensic Scientometrics:

1

0

7

3

16

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

Show of hands: how many of you have heard about a dean/department chair mention PubPeer and prioritize science integrity? All care about major grants coming in and papers in high impact journals. When senior faculty are caught with many manipulated figures, just crickets.

0

3

15

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

Leonid may be abrasive, but his blog is a must read. @spy_sci @MicrobiomDigest @Thatsregrettab1 @Thatsregrettab1 @nytimes @BostonGlobe Anversa, Croce, Sood, Semenza, Choi are only a tiny tip of the iceberg. Read carefully and spread as much as you can.

Schneider Shorts 13.01.2023 – On a strictly confidential basis

Schneider Shorts 13.01.2023 – confidential whitewashing in Australia, hallmarks of fraud in Cell, Nature journals welcome Count Facula and a Greek cheater, with FDA’s new Alzheimer̵…

forbetterscience.com

2

5

15

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 year

@aemonten The “mechanistic” part of a paper is often a desperate response to reviewers. The higher the journal, the higher the pressure for details. The result ? Forced connections that are rarely confirmed or pursued even by the lab of origin. Better no mechanism than a bogus mechanism.

0

15

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

18 days

@Thatsregrettab1 @SpringerNature Scenario 1: Joe Sucker submits a paper, gets the reviews and it’s clear that without experiment X asked by Reviewer 2 the paper is never going to get in. Tries a few times, but nature does not “cooperate”, X does not fit the story. He gives up disappointed. Same scenario, but Joe

1

5

15

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 month

Join Liza and myself for an open and deep discussion about the state of academic publishing. How do we defend our common body of knowledge and stop its rapid decay into noise? Please RT @Nature @ScienceMagazine @NIH @deadneanderthal @ArbitraryEffect @MicrobiomDigest

0

9

15

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

@catecadell The protesters, many completely exposed to surveillance cameras, are facing an enormous risk. Can’t say enough about their courage, they represent China’s true hope for a better future.

0

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

@CharlesMBrenner Hype at the highest level spread to the general public by media outlets. I wonder if he believes any of it himself? Has anyone been able to replicate his claims ?

3

1

14

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

A special evening with @kaelin_lab with art Art Deco flavor.

0

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

3 months

“ every time we pay a $3000 article processing charge, only $1800 supports the publishing process, while the remaining $1200 goes directly to Elsevier shareholders”. I guess not much left for detecting fraudulent figures, which should be their top priority

From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing

Two 17th century institutions—learned societies and scientific journals—transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

2

3

14

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 month

Everyone, what would it take for tweets about academic science misconduct to become viral and elicit some meaningful action? @DrLizaMD @jlmgarvayo @deadneanderthal @realdocspeaks @deevybee @MicrobiomDigest @LogarithmicDis @ArbitraryEffect @oakescs @cpiller @metapredict

14

4

14

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

During the past decade I’ve spent close to 10k hours learning how to integrate genomic datasets from dozens of sources to generate “literature-agnostic “portraits” of virtually any coding gene, noncoding RNA or regulatory element. In a nutshell, I generate figures that predict

2

9

14

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

Maui, the Garden of Eden, a few years ago.

0

2

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

Absolutely. Especially when there was a clear evidence of image manipulation. Why would the authors resort to such thing is a “correct” figure was available in the first place? I can’t imagine any reasonable excuse from the authors.

Dead Neanderthals

@deadneanderthal

2 months

@jim_bouldin @OxygenIvan @Spottingthespot @wool_yeah @SmutClyde @mortenoxe @ElsevierConnect That's a whole different beast. In my opinion, most corrections should be retractions.

1

0

4

1

2

14

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

One assumption is that regular taxpayers cannot grasp the content of scientific papers and for most part this is true. HOWEVER: an average individual should be able to understand figure duplication. Nobel laureates publishing papers with duplicated figures means we are in deep …

4

1

12

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

27 days

One of the deepest questions that should be part of any discussion with someone harboring an opposing view: “what would it take to change your mind?” We should also practice asking such question to ourselves. Being open to change opinions, no matter how deeply rooted, based on

1

4

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

Planck's principle: “scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views”. In other words, long term progress would be impossible if the famous and powerful lived forever.

0

1

11

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

25 days

One of the questions asked in this article: “The question of whether research fraud should be a crime”. There should be meaningful consequences for those perpetrating fraudulent science and in some cases yes, such acts should be prosecuted as crimes.

The staggering death toll of scientific lies

From Don Poldersmans and Francesca Gino to faked Alzheimer’s data, the scientific field needs a better handle on allegations and consequences of fraudulent research.

www.vox.com

3

7

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 months

A long forgotten virtue.

nature

@Nature

2 months

Slow productivity: do fewer things, work at a natural pace and obsess over quality

27

365

1K

3

2

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

SCIENCE FRAUD IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME. Please list the most nefarious consequences in your view. RT if you agree.

1

5

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

2 years

Born and raised there. #Brasov should be on many folks’ bucket-list.

99% SIM

@sim010101

3 years

One can never forget #Brasov ❤️🇷🇴 #Romania GE❣️

2

22

103

0

2

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

5 months

@SaeedDoroudiani Precisely… This system needs to go if science is to advance. Otherwise our children will inherit a lot of noise…

0

12

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

1 month

Join us for a timely and hopefully fascinating discussion. Without a doubt one of the most important, rapidly growing yet largely ignored problem of our times. Questionable science practices, pseudoscience, fraudulent & erroneous science, whatever you want to call it. It’s all

Liza Dunn

@DrLizaMD

1 month

Two Scientists walk into a bar and start a fight over their work. How do you know which one to believe? Come find out next Friday!

5

9

18

0

6

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

How the Karolinska protected Paolo Macchiarini — and whistleblowers paid the price – “Accompanied by members of the Nobel Committee, Hamsten disavowed Gerdin’s external inquiry and proclaimed his confidence in Macchiarini”….

How the Karolinska protected Paolo Macchiarini — and whistleblowers paid the price

Carl Elliott Retraction Watch readers may recall the story of Paolo Macchiarini, about whom we first wrote in 2012 before he became the subject of international scrutiny — and who has now bee…

retractionwatch.com

0

8

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

6 months

23 years passed between my discovery of enzymatic HIF prolyl hydroxylation (2001) to the first FDA approval of a drug that exploits this mechanism (yesterday). Time flies…

0

2

13

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

Finding the truth in science | Nature Reviews Cancer

Finding the truth in science

Nature Reviews Cancer - In a ‘publish or perish’ culture, some scientists may resort to questionable research practices or even fraud. Scientific paper mills and artificial intelligence...

www.nature.com

0

5

12

Mircea Ivan

@OxygenIvan

4 months

One of our great weaknesses, an obsession with rankings even when they become absurd.

Physics In History

@PhysInHistory

4 months

100 Greatest Mathematicians of all Time! ✍️ 1. Isaac Newton 2. Archimedes 3. Carl F. Gauss 4. Leonhard Euler 5. Bernhard Riemann 6. David Hilbert 7. Joseph-Louis Lagrange 8. Euclid of Alexandria 9. Alexandre Grothendieck 10. Gottfried W. Leibniz 11. John von Neumann 12. Henri

335

801

3K

2

4

12