
Science integrity consultant, PhD. #ImageForensics #sleuthmaxxing @METRICStanford affiliate / https://nitter.gq/t.co/2xH3WdXTFr / Patreon
San Francisco, CA
Joined October 2013
- Tweets76.4K
- Following44.2K
- Followers144K
- Likes129K
Pinned Tweet
'Elisabeth Bik is a Dutch microbiologist. [...]
Then she opened a PhD thesis that had lifted text from somewhere else, and her eye caught something different.
A duplicated image.
She sat down and went through 20,621 published biomedical papers. By eye.'
facebook.com/WeirdbutTruex/p…
From my collection of Horrible Editorial Decisions, I present to you another installation of #ThisImageIsFine, published in @Sciencedirect's International Immunopharmacology, and which was promptly addressed with a ... Correction! 😱
#ImageForensics
pubpeer.com/publications/0B8…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Today I'm posting a new video to my YouTube channel! PubMed has stopped indexing Scientific Reports (for the time being at least)... Is anyone surprised? youtu.be/HXcrOkRUkLY
AI-generated research is testing the credibility of science
"It's absolutely flooding the scientific literature, and journals and publishers are struggling to keep up."
With quotes from Ivan Oransky, Michal Jojcik, and me.
Katharine Sorensen @TheBeiruter
thebeiruter.com/article/ai-g…
Scientific research has an artificial intelligence problem, and it goes well beyond AI-assisted writing.
Generative AI can now produce convincing scientific images, fabricate experimental datasets and invent academic references, making fraudulent research more difficult to identify and raising questions about the reliability of published findings.
A study published in Scientometrics in October 2026 estimated that the proportion of research papers containing AI-assisted writing rose from 9.8% in 2024 to 23.5% in 2025. While such assistance does not itself constitute misconduct, the technology's capacity to manufacture scientific evidence presents a far more serious challenge.
The problem is compounded by longstanding pressures within academia. Researchers are rewarded for publishing frequently, while commercial publishers can benefit financially from accepting more manuscripts.
Meanwhile, scientific journals are turning to AI-powered screening tools to detect manipulation and support peer review, creating a technological contest between increasingly sophisticated fabrication and detection.
Through interviews with research-integrity investigators Ivan Oransky, Elisabeth Bik and Michal Wojcik, The Beiruter examines how AI is amplifying existing vulnerabilities in scientific publishing.
Can scientific institutions protect the credibility of research without confronting the incentives that made the system vulnerable in the first place?
Read the full article by Katharine Sorensen below.
#TheBeiruter #AI #ScientificFraud #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicPublishing #Science #ArtificialIntelligence
thebeiruter.com/article/scie…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
On se souvient que le HCERES écrit à propos de l'IHU-Mi "il est également indispensable que l’IHU s’engage activement dans une démarche de demandes de correction de la science".
4 ans plus tard, rien n'est moins vrai. Un exemple parlant est décrit ci-dessous.
1/21
The Currency of the Journal Article Is Collapsing
As an editor I can say that we are being flooded with AI-assisted work.
By Anna Wexler
theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/1…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review.
We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me.
For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science.
TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
This AI acknowledgement takes the win. From this paper: arxiv.org/pdf/2610.27918.
A study of articles suspected of being associated with “paper mills”in the field of molecular cancer shows the papers cite other paper mill papers to inflate their metrics. These practices can amplify unreliable findings and slow scientific progress. ow.ly/1izn51008lE
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Site de pubmed ce matin : quand la terminologie est décidée par executive order !
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Replying to @SciGuardians @ScienceMagazine
Eh, that is called journalistic reporting on facts?
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
How do you tell if authors fabricated their research results? Sometimes: they just tell you. Read, e.g., this caption carefully.
Another banger of a post by my friend Nihar B. Shah on his blog, where he found at least 20+ such #ICLR2027 submissions:
researchonresearch.blog/2026…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Today I am sharing a new preprint and accompanying blog post. Hundreds of published papers include impossible western blots showing protein expression in cell lines that have deleted or mutated genes. These clumsy mistakes are widespread and repeated by LLMs.
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
I know this pic has been posted by others already, but... what on earth @RCPhysicians ?! 😱
#NoMoreManels
#DiversityAndInclusion
"the Editor does not have sufficient evidence to retract the article"
What WOULD qualify as sufficient evidence, one might ask.
#ImageForensics
#ThisImageIsFine
doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.20…
pubpeer.com/publications/981…
Not sure what new 'sufficient' evidence came to light (perhaps it was just my tweet?), but the article has been retracted:
sciencedirect.com/science/ar…
8
579
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
79th retraction for the Marseille "retraction institute."
The 66th for Didier Raoult.
Lack of ethical approval.
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
"Award-winning microscopy image disqualified over AI use."
nature.com/articles/d41586-0…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
Journals have retracted four neural tube studies from researchers at The University of Maryland following an internal investigation that identified image duplications and other data integrity issues.
By @claulopezneuro
thetransmitter.org/academia/…
Elisabeth Bik retweeted
This must be a very interesting seminar: "Errors and Misconduct in Biomedical Research Images" with the brilliant @MicrobiomDigest hosted by German Bioimaging Group gerbi-gmb.de/teams/ymia/























