Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Genes Are Us

hand-social-media

(Photo: VLADGRIN/Shutterstock)

Is Social Media Saving Science?

• July 11, 2014 • 12:00 PM

(Photo: VLADGRIN/Shutterstock)

Online discussions and post-publication analyses are catching mistakes that sneak past editorial review.

Last week, two big papers that described a seemingly revolutionary method to make stem cells were retracted. The retractions were no surprise to stem cell researchers. Authored by a team of Japanese and American scientists and published in Nature in January, the papers fell under suspicion within days, thanks to discussions on blogs, Twitter, and the online science forum PubPeer. It’s a storyline that is frustratingly familiar: A paper is published in one of the world’s leading peer-reviewed journals and widely reported in the press, only to have major flaws exposed almost immediately. Last year, readers quickly found flaws in another high-profile stem cell paper. (They turned out to be innocent, but substantial typographical screw-ups.) And just last week, the editors of the journal that published the recent Facebook social contagion study put out an official Expression of Concern, acknowledging that the study broke the journal’s standards for human research subjects.

It’s surprising how often this happens. Why do editors and expert reviewers, whose primary job is to vet manuscripts, miss major flaws that are so obvious to readers after the papers are published?

IN THE FALLOUT FROM the retracted stem cell papers, one factor invoked repeatedly was trust. “There are some people you 100% trust,” stem cell scientist Hans Schöler told Science. For him, those people included three of the senior authors on the now-discredited work. Schöler reviewed an earlier, rejected version of these papers for a different journal, and he comments that reviewers are unlikely to go out of their way to check for misconduct in manuscripts that come from labs with a strong reputation for trustworthy work.

Peer-review is based on trust, but as the international scientific community grows, scientists won’t spend their careers in the small, trusted networks of known colleagues that earlier generations of researchers were used to.

And the heads of those labs trust the junior scientists who carry out the actual experiments and data analysis. The lead junior scientist on the stem cell project, Haruko Obokata, was found guilty of misconduct, which included improperly splicing together different images, presenting different microscope pictures of one embryo as images of two distinct embryos, and some minor plagiarism. As a result, the research team’s claim to have produced true stem cells with their new method fell apart. Several members of the team initially said that they had independently verified Obokata’s work before publishing, but it turns out that nobody actually repeated the entire experiment. They all trusted Obokata’s results.

Trust will always be indispensable in science, but perhaps scientists rely on it too much. The chief editor of The EMBO Journal told Nature News that that roughly 20 percent of the manuscripts they receive are flagged for potentially problematic image manipulations, such as splicing two images together to make them look like one. In most cases, the changes weren’t intended to be misleading, but the executive editor of another journal reported that their editors reject one out of 100 initially accepted manuscripts for improperly manipulated images.

These numbers are shockingly high. They show that improper data handling is common in science. For anyone who has published a scientific paper, perhaps this shouldn’t be too surprising. The process of preparing and selecting data that was collected over several months or even years, and fitting it into a clear, concise manuscript is challenging, especially when a large team of researchers is involved. Mistakes happen and poor decisions are made, sometimes by the less-experienced scientists who actually plot the graphs and compose the figures. Editors and reviewers shouldn’t simply take it on trust that their colleagues have done the right thing.

Most journals have implemented routine checks for image problems and plagiarism, but these checks have their limits. In an editorial accompanying last week’s retractions, Nature‘s editors argued that, in spite of some errors in the vetting process, “we and the referees could not have detected the problems that fatally undermined the papers. The referees’ rigorous reports quite rightly took on trust what was presented in the papers.” But if that’s true, how could online commenters spot the flaws so quickly?

THIS PART OF THE retraction story is actually good news. Here, post-publication review, catalyzed by social media, worked as it should. Evaluating research after it’s been published has, of course, always been a crucial element of science. Scientists will challenge published results in letters to journals and arguments at conferences. But those are typically solo efforts by established scientists. Social media and online discussion forums are changing that: they make it easier for junior scientists to participate, let readers compare notes, and, most importantly, provide a public space that is not under the control of journal editors and conference organizers. Surprisingly high-level critiques of big papers happen on Twitter each week. Discussions on PubPeer have played a big role in several high-profile corrections and retractions. And the National Institutes of Health sees enough promise in the social Web to invest in its own forum. These forums are a boon to science, because the crowd-sourced reviews of published research papers catch flaws that even the most careful editors and pre-publication reviewers miss.

Unfortunately, much of the scientific community is still very skeptical about the value of people criticizing research on the Internet. The most common complaints I hear are about time and quality control. Busy, serious scientists don’t have time to waste on Twitter or message boards, where any unhinged idiot with an Internet connection can rage away against a highly technical paper that he doesn’t get. The National Institutes of Health clearly shares some of this concern, and it has established eligibility requirements for participation in its forum. These concerns are understandable, but to those of us who have gone ahead and joined these online communities, it’s clear that they work. And as more scientists figure out how to integrate them into their professional lives, post-publication review will only get better.

Peer-review is based on trust, but as the international scientific community grows, scientists won’t spend their careers in the small, trusted networks of known colleagues that earlier generations of researchers were used to. Journals and reviewers need to step up their efforts to check for misconduct, but inevitably, papers with major problems will get through. Crowd-sourced, post-publication review through social media is an effective, publicly open way for science to stay trustworthy.

Michael White
Michael White is a systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, where he studies how DNA encodes information for gene regulation. He co-founded the online science pub The Finch and Pea. Follow him on Twitter @genologos.

More From Michael White

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

October 31 • 12:00 PM

In the Picture: SNAP Food Benefits, Birthday Cake, and Walmart

In every issue, we fix our gaze on an everyday photograph and chase down facts about details in the frame.


October 31 • 10:15 AM

Levels of Depression Could Be Evaluated Through Measurements of Acoustic Speech

Engineers find tell-tale signs in speech patterns of the depressed.


October 31 • 8:00 AM

Who Wants a Cute Congressman?

You probably do—even if you won’t admit it. In politics, looks aren’t everything, but they’re definitely something.


October 31 • 7:00 AM

Why Scientists Make Promises They Can’t Keep

A research proposal that is totally upfront about the uncertainty of the scientific process and its potential benefits might never pass governmental muster.


October 31 • 6:12 AM

The Psychology of a Horror Movie Fan

Scientists have tried to figure out the appeal of axe murderers and creepy dolls, but it mostly remains a spooky mystery.


October 31 • 4:00 AM

The Power of Third Person Plural on Support for Public Policies

Researchers find citizens react differently to policy proposals when they’re framed as impacting “people,” as opposed to “you.”


October 30 • 4:00 PM

I Should Have Told My High School Students About My Struggle With Drinking

As a teacher, my students confided in me about many harrowing aspects of their lives. I never crossed the line and shared my biggest problem with them—but now I wish I had.


October 30 • 2:00 PM

How Dark Money Got a Mining Company Everything It Wanted

An accidentally released court filing reveals how one company secretly gave money to a non-profit that helped get favorable mining legislation passed.


October 30 • 12:00 PM

The Halloween Industrial Complex

The scariest thing about Halloween might be just how seriously we take it. For this week’s holiday, Americans of all ages will spend more than $5 billion on disposable costumes and bite-size candy.


October 30 • 10:00 AM

Sky’s the Limit: The Case for Selling Air Rights

Lower taxes and debt, increased revenue for the city, and a much better use of space in already dense environments: Selling air rights and encouraging upward growth seem like no-brainers, but NIMBY resistance and philosophical barriers remain.


October 30 • 9:00 AM

Cycles of Fear and Bias in the Criminal Justice System

Exploring the psychological roots of racial disparity in U.S. prisons.


October 30 • 8:00 AM

How Do You Make a Living, Email Newsletter Writer?

Noah Davis talks to Wait But Why writer Tim Urban about the newsletter concept, the research process, and escaping “money-flushing toilet” status.



October 30 • 6:00 AM

Dreamers of the Carbon-Free Dream

Can California go full-renewable?


October 30 • 5:08 AM

We’re Not So Great at Rejecting Each Other

And it’s probably something we should work on.


October 30 • 4:00 AM

He’s Definitely a Liberal—Just Check Out His Brain Scan

New research finds political ideology can be easily determined by examining how one’s brain reacts to disgusting images.


October 29 • 4:00 PM

Should We Prosecute Climate Change Protesters Who Break the Law?

A conversation with Bristol County, Massachusetts, District Attorney Sam Sutter, who dropped steep charges against two climate change protesters.


October 29 • 2:23 PM

Innovation Geography: The Beginning of the End for Silicon Valley

Will a lack of affordable housing hinder the growth of creative start-ups?


October 29 • 2:00 PM

Trapped in the Tobacco Debt Trap

A refinance of Niagara County, New York’s tobacco bonds was good news—but for investors, not taxpayers.


October 29 • 12:00 PM

Purity and Self-Mutilation in Thailand

During the nine-day Phuket Vegetarian Festival, a group of chosen ones known as the mah song torture themselves in order to redirect bad luck and misfortune away from their communities and ensure a year of prosperity.


October 29 • 10:00 AM

Can Proposition 47 Solve California’s Problem With Mass Incarceration?

Reducing penalties for low-level felonies could be the next step in rolling back draconian sentencing laws and addressing the criminal justice system’s long legacy of racism.


October 29 • 9:00 AM

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Brain

Neuroscientists find less—but potentially stronger—white matter in the brains of patients with CFS.


October 29 • 8:00 AM

America’s Bathrooms Are a Total Failure

No matter which American bathroom is crowned in this year’s America’s Best Restroom contest, it will still have a host of terrible flaws.



October 29 • 6:00 AM

Tell Us What You Really Think

In politics, are we always just looking out for No. 1?


Follow us


Levels of Depression Could Be Evaluated Through Measurements of Acoustic Speech

Engineers find tell-tale signs in speech patterns of the depressed.

We’re Not So Great at Rejecting Each Other

And it's probably something we should work on.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Brain

Neuroscientists find less—but potentially stronger—white matter in the brains of patients with CFS.

Incumbents, Pray for Rain

Come next Tuesday, rain could push voters toward safer, more predictable candidates.

Could Economics Benefit From Computer Science Thinking?

Computational complexity could offer new insight into old ideas in biology and, yes, even the dismal science.

The Big One

One town, Champlain, New York, was the source of nearly half the scams targeting small businesses in the United States last year. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.