Skip to Main Content

PONTYPRIDD, Wales — The blog post that has shaken the leadership of Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of the world’s preeminent cancer research centers, was written some 3,000 miles away, in a bare-walled, sparsely decorated flat, save for a stack of statistics books and a collection of Rubik’s Cubes.

It’s here that Sholto David, an unemployed scientist with a doctorate in cell and molecular biology, spends his time poring over research papers looking for images with clues that they’ve been manipulated in some way to portray misleading findings — perhaps duplicated, spliced or cropped, or partially obscured.

advertisement

As he’s toiled away over the past three years, often long past midnight, he’s flagged issues on more than 2,000 papers on a site called PubPeer, where researchers can critique and discuss published studies. His comments are sometimes met by a study’s author dodging the questions raised, and sometimes result in a correction or retraction. Often though, they’re met with no response.

STAT+ Exclusive Story

STAT+

This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and networking platform access.

Already have an account? Log in

Already have an account? Log in

Monthly

$39

Totals $468 per year

$39/month Get Started

Totals $468 per year

Starter

$30

for 3 months, then $39/month

$30 for 3 months Get Started

Then $39/month

Annual

$399

Save 15%

$399/year Get Started

Save 15%

11+ Users

Custom

Savings start at 25%!

Request A Quote Request A Quote

Savings start at 25%!

2-10 Users

$300

Annually per user

$300/year Get Started

$300 Annually per user

View All Plans

Get unlimited access to award-winning journalism and exclusive events.

Subscribe

STAT encourages you to share your voice. We welcome your commentary, criticism, and expertise on our subscriber-only platform, STAT+ Connect

To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page.