A black and white image of a butterfly on a flower with a colored overlay. The PLOS logo is displayed in the top left corner. A blue text box reads: "Explore Open Science Indicators. Our interactive dashboard brings open research-sharing signals together in one place, helping you explore how openness is developing across the research landscape and where progress is emerging.

Explore research‑sharing trends with our new interactive Open Science Indicators dashboard prototype.

See how practices like study registration, data, code, protocol sharing and preprints vary across fields, countries, funders and organizations.

🔗 Explore #OpenScience Indicators: plos.io/3PFvT3h

I stayed in a twin room in a Manchester hotel which had a solid-door toilet cubicle but the sink was in the bedroom and the small shower cubicle had a glass door that opened directly into the bedroom. I remember thinking I would not have been impressed if I had to share that room with a colleague.

Hacking peer review accounts is more common than you think, often done by paper mills and peer-review rings so they can manipulate the peer-review process of their products/the submissions of their buddies whilst making it seem like said peer-reviewer is genuine and a respected expert in the field.

Open science empowers transparency and scrutiny. See how our editorial checks and review processes protect the scientific record at every stage.

plos.io/3MsfiP2

#ResearchIntegrity #PublicationEthics #TrustInScience

Especially considering the notice explicitly states that the journal has concerns about the integrity of the published results: "In light of the above unresolved concerns that question the reliability and integrity of the reported results, the PLOS One Editors retract this article."

By retracting the article, the journal is already indicating that they consider the explanations impausible and/or insufficient, and that the journal consider the concerns unresolved, otherwise the article would not be retracted in the first place.

Realisitically speaking, if there are obvious manipulation concerns then the suggestion of misconduct would be redundant, and if the origin of the error is not immediately obvious then it would be inappropriate for editors to adjudicate on matters outside of their editorial jurisdiction.

Investigations into misconduct and culpability do not fall within the remit of editorial investigations. Therefore, editorial notices will not usually comment on misconduct or culpability, as obvious as the misconduct may appear sometimes, unless such concerns have been confirmed by an institution.

Photo of a male tabby cat snoozing with his head on his paws, laying on a multi-coloured knitted blanket.

This is Stitch. As is evident from the photo, he has been up to absolutely nothing...

As would be expected for a time-lapse experiment. However, it isn't expected for biological samples to remain pixel-perfect identical throughout the time-lapse.

Furthermore, the full figure legend states that the panel d of the left figure is 8h of exposure to 0.1 mg/ml Gly+10 mM NAC and the right panel a is 12h of exposure control, so in this case it is not possible that it represents a time-lapse of the same sample.

Sometimes a methodology allows for this, but it would need to be clarified in the article. However, time-lapse experiments rarely show data this similar.

Supposedly the left figure represents tissue exposed to glyphosate for 8 hours and the right figure represents tissue exposed to glyphosate for 12 hours, so yes, it seems that at least one of these images was used to represent a different condition than the condition it originated from.

Of course you do not use every single image in a publication, but when selecting the best image it should still come from the correct data set. It is inappropriate to take an image from condition A to represent condition B.

Experimental images are not "samples" added to beautify articles, they are key data that support results and conclusions. Therefore it is important that the image data are correct and accurately represent the obtained results, especially if the numerical results are quantified from these images.

That is where a full article investigation comes in. Is this the only set of overlaps or are there multiple? Were these image results quantified, and if so did this error happen before or after quantification? These are considerations editors make before deciding whether to correct, EOC, or retract.

Bottom right of the Left panel b and top left of the Right panel a partially overlap

You'd be surprised how often it happens, especially to people who are more senior in their field. They sometimes get added to papers without their knowledge or consent because authors hope that having a known and respected name on the article will result in more positive peer-review.

Could you/your colleague please send the details of this case to pub-ethics@plos.org so that our team can investigate this matter further?

This position will strengthen the PLOS Publication Ethics team's individual case group; so if you enjoy scanning images for irregularities, digging into underlying data, diving into complex scientific disputes or dissecting clinical ethics concerns, this may be the role for you.

Associate Editor, Publication Ethics UK- Remote

The PLOS Publication Ethics team is expanding further, looking for an Associate Editor to strengthen our team (permanent contract, fully remote, UK and select USA states only). See info below:
UK link: job-boards.eu.greenhouse.io/plos/jobs/46...
USA link: job-boards.eu.greenhouse.io/plos/jobs/46...

Or do you mean there are people who do NOT look for patterns in floor tiles 🤣

Lesson learned; social media and trains are not a recommended combination 😜

I am not certain which body would be responsible for overseeing UK institutional investigations. However, if the institute's input is inaccurate or biased, the publisher may look for additional external input, such as the funding body. Editors may also choose to reject the manuscript or post an EOC.

Publication Ethics Specialist: this role is an editorial operations position supporting the needs of the PLOS Publication Ethics team. Do you have prior experience working in editorial operations and looking for a new challenge? Do you have a good eye for detail? This role may be a good fit for you.

This PLOS Publication Ethics Associate Editor position is a great opportunity for early career editors, academics, or recent post-graduates to join an established publication ethics team, and help PLOS investigate and resolve concerns raised with individual articles submitted or published with PLOS.

Bump in the track, let's try again!
Associate Editor: are you the kind of person who spots repeating patterns in published figures (or kitchen tiles)? Do you enjoy digging through underlying datasets? Do you care about the integrity of the scientific record? This may be the role for you!

Associate Editor: are you the kind of person who spots repeating patterns in floor tiles?

Public Library of Science <p>Thank you for your interest in careers at PLOS. Our Talent Acquisition team strives to create a positive and equitable interview experience for all candidates. We look forward to receiving your app...

The PLOS Publication Ethics team is expanding further, currently recruiting an Associate Editor (editorial) and a Specialist (editorial support). 12 mo Fixed Term contracts, UK based candidates only. Follow this link or my thread below for more information
job-boards.eu.greenhouse.io/plos