korrents
Elisabeth Bik

What Elisabeth Bik thinks about metascience

@elisabeth-bik · 11 positions · On ppll ↗

Dutch-American microbiologist and science integrity consultant who finds image duplication and manipulation in published research. Worked at Stanford University from 2001 to 2016; working on research integrity full time since 2019. Won the John Maddox Prize in 2021. Writes Science Integrity Digest.

Elisabeth Bik did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

Filter metascience · Newest first
Topic
All 11metascience 5peer review 3social media 3AI and science 1design 1LLMs 1
Sort
NewestOldest

Only Elisabeth Bik on metascience. See everyone on metascience

5 dated positions, 2025 to 2026, in their own words. Our reading of what Elisabeth Bik has said — not written or endorsed by them.

  1. Our readingMany problematic biomedical papers are still not addressed by journals ten years after being identified.

    Their wordsUnfortunately, many of these problematic papers are still not addressed by the journals now, ten years later, even though the concerns in some of them are far beyond what could be blamed on an innocent error.

    ↗Skip to contentscienceintegritydigest.com 1st of 3 in this piece

  3. Our readingCertain image duplications in research papers could not have happened by accident.

    Their wordsThese are what I call "5 second retractions" - no matter what the authors will tell you ("the original photos were lost in an airplane crash"; "our basement got flooded", or "the intern did it"), there is no conceivable way that these duplications could have happened by accident.

    ↗Skip to contentscienceintegritydigest.com 2nd of 3 in this piece

  5. Our readingThe journal Cytokine has done very little to address reported problematic papers.

    Their wordsCytokine has been one of the journals that did very little with the 30 papers I reported to them in October 2015. Of those papers, only 2 have been retracted, and another 2 have been corrected. The remaining 26 (87%!) have not been touched.

    ↗Skip to contentscienceintegritydigest.com 3rd of 3 in this piece

  6. 11 months earlier

  7. Our readingThe preprint claiming that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause transcriptomic dysregulation is deeply flawed.

    Their wordsPreprint claiming that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause transcriptomic dysregulation is deeply flawed

    ↗Skip to contentscienceintegritydigest.com 1st of 3 in this piece

  9. Our readingThe study's small group sizes and unequal distribution increase the risk of unreliable or non-reproducible findings.

    Their wordsWith fewer than 10 individuals in the two 'sick' groups, it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions. In such small groups, a single patient with an unusual RNA expression pattern could significantly skew the results. In contrast, outliers in the much larger control group will have far less influence on the average. This kind of imbalance increases the risk of generating unreliable or non-reproducible findings.

    ↗Skip to contentscienceintegritydigest.com 2nd of 3 in this piece