ScienceGuardians gives voice to all stakeholders
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
Thank you, Dr. El-Deiry, for replying here. Much appreciated!
Noone is trying to smear your reputation; we just noticed that several of your papers appear to have duplicated or mixed-up images, which might need to be corrected. The particular issue raised above appears to indeed be a mix-up, where images have not been matched carefully with the correct sample. Even if these are obvious errors, there amount of errors in this one figure raises doubt over the rigor applied to this experiment. I hope you can correct this and other errors.
Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
Dear Elisabeth: If you look at what you found, it is clear that when the first author assembled the figure, for the higher magnifications he mixed up the panels. The data is all there and it is pretty obvious. I have tried to reach Dr. Finnberg without success as he left academia years ago. However, I want to point out that if you read the paper you will see there is no difference in Ki67 among the 3 genotypes. No differences are claimed. That means it is a negative result. The finding has zero significance as far as the conclusions of the paper. Any scientific peer would see that. The work was conducted two decades ago and so it is unclear why you have chosen to target this paper. The important scientific findings were reproduced and extended in another important paper my lab published in JCI in March of 2025. The more recent work has relevance to radiation toxicities that patients face as well as radiation countermeasures. I have been unable to get my NIH grant funded by the nih perhaps because you and PubPeer have smeared my reputation. I have not heard from the JCI about this paper but i have responded to your finding. W. El-Deiry