Uncovering Scientific Misconduct and Verifying Data: How Journalists Can Utilize PubPeer
Investigative journalism has gained a powerful ally in the form of PubPeer, a platform where researchers scrutinize and peer review one another's scientific work. Over the past decade, PubPeer has played a pivotal role in uncovering scientific misconduct, allowing journalists to expose incorrect results and unethical practices.
Created a decade ago with the aim of fostering discussions on individual academic studies, PubPeer’s actual goal is to expedite the correction of science and to come to scientific conclusions more quickly and accurately. The platform primarily focuses on papers that have already undergone peer review and publication in academic journals. When discussions about a paper commence on PubPeer, the platform automatically invites the paper's author to respond, often leading to extensive and detailed exchanges that are very productive. Comments are public on PubPeer, which allows journalists to observe a segment of the scientific process. The majority of comments on the platform are anonymous, giving scholars a safe space to raise questions and express concerns without fearing retaliation.
In recent years, PubPeer has gained a reputation for being a crucial channel for exposing research misconduct. Allegations of altered images in Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne's research were first discovered on PubPeer by a student journalist, sparking investigations that ultimately led to Tessier-Lavigne's resignation.
In order to access the information they need and then report accurately and ethically on it, journalists need to take a few steps.
Install the PubPeer Browser Extension
PubPeer offers browser extensions for major web browsers such as Safari, Mozilla Firefox, and Google Chrome. The extension alerts users to the presence of PubPeer comments on research papers they are reading online. Additionally, a plugin for Zotero, another useful research assistant, allows users to check if papers in their saved collection have comments on PubPeer.
Not Focus Entirely on Negativity
Journalists should refrain from publishing stories solely to highlight negative comments about a research study. The mere existence of critical comments on PubPeer is not, by itself, newsworthy. Instead, use PubPeer as a preliminary assessment tool to gauge the credibility of researchers and studies.
Verify All Claims
PubPeer should be treated as a tip sheet rather than an authoritative source. Approximately 90 percent of comments on the platform are posted anonymously, which means thorough verification of claims is essential. Engage multiple experts, including those with subject-area expertise and technical experts, to validate the information found on PubPeer.
Exercise Caution in Alleging Misconduct
Journalists should be cautious when describing the likelihood of researcher misconduct. It can be challenging to establish with certainty whether data or images have been manipulated, especially without access to original data. Use language that reflects some level of uncertainty, such as "apparent fabrication" or "potential errors." Consulting with an expert on call will be helpful in making choices for how to describe these phenomena.
Check PubPeer for All Researchers
Even if a researcher plays a minor role in a story, it's advisable to check PubPeer for any comments related to their work. This practice helps assess the credibility of sources and avoids potential conflicts of interest.
Scientific integrity is paramount, and PubPeer serves as a crucial tool in the pursuit of truth and transparency in research. While PubPeer offers a window into scientific debates and questionable practices, it is essential for journalists to use PubPeer judiciously and responsibly. By following the tips above, journalists can harness the power of PubPeer to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their reporting.
