Mu Yang, Ph.D.
@mumumouse2
Followers
1,910
Following
1,120
Media
216
Statuses
499
Behavioral neuroscientist. Scientific integrity matters.
New York
Joined November 2023
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
Chelsea
• 282936 Tweets
Ángel
• 264683 Tweets
The FBI
• 254801 Tweets
Mar-a-Lago
• 196805 Tweets
Espinoza
• 81039 Tweets
#LAMeetandGreetxENGLOT
• 79187 Tweets
Poch
• 77602 Tweets
Celtics
• 66413 Tweets
#TierraDeNadie11
• 65041 Tweets
Pacers
• 51622 Tweets
Secret Service
• 46801 Tweets
Alleged
• 44001 Tweets
Tarcísio
• 37626 Tweets
XDefiant
• 35331 Tweets
Blanca
• 32691 Tweets
Alesp
• 29318 Tweets
Greenfield
• 24577 Tweets
Estudantes
• 24358 Tweets
Mikael
• 23633 Tweets
Marcelo Odebrecht
• 20812 Tweets
Aurah
• 17915 Tweets
Herrera
• 16420 Tweets
Fortaleza
• 15666 Tweets
週の真ん中
• 15039 Tweets
I caused an entire BOOK to be retracted. Reported 6 months ago. Swift decision by
@SpringerNature
. Also reported several books by the same authors to
@ElsevierConnect
, did heard a beep.
79
266
1K
Editor: You didn't stop for a second and think "honey is amazing for Alzheimer's?!". ....Anyway, lots of back and forth between the authors and sleuths here
82
123
1K
I matched a neuroscience PI at Harvard yesterday, on a dating app. Of course I immediately said I am one of those sleuths. Of course he immediately unmatched me. I laughed so hard. Empowering doesn't come close to describe it.
13
11
433
To friends who followed me from India and Iran this week, thank you for your support. My home country (China) is also plagued with fraudulent publications, and I share your frustration. The cause of the issue is very complicated, but together, we can start to make changes. 🙏
4
13
290
Weekend conversation on integrity: We need to address "toxic pressure in the lab" in order reduce fraud. Many cases of fraud were probably the result of desperate people working under duress. Implicit messages from PIs on what results are desirable are very harmful. Your turn.
13
21
214
If you are interested in the evidence, here it is.
@ImageTwinAI
did most of the work!
I caused an entire BOOK to be retracted. Reported 6 months ago. Swift decision by
@SpringerNature
. Also reported several books by the same authors to
@ElsevierConnect
, did heard a beep.
79
266
1K
9
38
190
This is not about a specific country. China (where I came from) has its huge share of F papers. Ultimately, the editors and publishers are the gatekeepers. The responsibility is not negotiable, given profits are involved. Let's keep the conversation civil.
Editor: You didn't stop for a second and think "honey is amazing for Alzheimer's?!". ....Anyway, lots of back and forth between the authors and sleuths here
82
123
1K
3
13
190
After a behavioral experiment today (my actual job), I held a mouse in my hand and thought about the number of compromised studies that used mice, and how many little lives were lived for nothing, I choked up. Team🐭🐁
8
9
152
@DavidAotearoa
That's my point! Editor(s) and at least two reviewers were apparently okay with it.
2
1
137
Elsevier notified me about a "batch retraction" of 7 papers from Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy.
8
17
119
This is what the BEST sleuth gets in return for her relentless fight against fraud? More need to join her and I am one.
@ProfRobHoward
Not from Lindsay so far, but I got a couple of others in the past (all from Cassava fans).
14
1
44
2
8
98
@lonnibesancon
@SpringerNature
@ElsevierConnect
I am waiting to get my hate mails. You can't have them all 😅
4
0
90
Four years is how long ago I started reporting this case. Thanks to the sleuth community that came together (
@MicrobiomDigest
@Thatsregrettab1
and many others), we are no longer silent. Thank you
@TomAvril1
at
@PhillyInquirer
for the reporting.
3
17
81
@Benonisim
Correct. There are multiple other books similar to this, most published by Elsevier.
2
0
72
@SilentDraggon
I worry more about the publisher (Elsevier, again, and again) not being able to catch this sort of stuff.
3
1
63
4
5
62
My work (on that book retraction) made to the RW Weekend Reads yay!
Weekend reads: Editor under scrutiny resigns; bullshitting scientists; questionable practices in expanding disciplines
0
3
13
3
3
61
One study used rat tissue and the other human tissue. Somehow an image occurred in both.
5
5
58
Scientific Reports is a good training ground for aspiring sleuths. There, I said it.
5
5
48
Never mind AI, I am not sure you even need a science degree to see it (and I didn't mark everything). Nevertheless it is in Eur J. Medicinal Chemistry (2023).
5
6
49
Marking is messy because same images were differently cropped and used multiple times. I didn't mark all, otherwise too messy. Nanjing Univ is one of top 10 universities in China. And this is in the Nature journal with all-Chinese editors.
2
8
48
Arguing about data is extremely hard. But sometimes it is not.
1
7
46
Helping mom indexing hers and my dad's papers. This is one of the papers by the two of them. The greatest love story.
6
1
138
When you are too lazy to report each paper to each EIC, you dump the "monthly collection" to the Integrity team at
@ElsevierConnect
and hope for miracles.
5
9
44
@JeanClaudeFox2
@SpringerNature
@ElsevierConnect
Lots image issues, probably will take a while to write the retraction notice. I might share the dossier on Google drive if anyone is interested.
2
1
44
This sleuth-in-training needs your opinions: 1) What could be the incentives to publish a lot of papers that are rarely cited? 2) Should we worry about such papers?
39
8
44
I accidentally caused a Retraction "The corresponding author contacted the editorial office with a request to correct Figure 3A. However, image analysis performed by the editorial office revealed the revised Figure 3A still contained image duplication..." PMID 38608700
2
2
40
I contributed about 40. That's quite a percentage for one person me thinks 🙃
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
6
12
41
Error bars are present, but VERY VERY hard to see. This seems to be a Nature journal that's under an all -Chinese editorial team. Not sure how if there is a mechanism to prevent favoritism. I asked to see raw data on Pubpeer.
3
3
37
I don't mean to troll Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy (Elsevier), but.
5
4
50
Not very subtle. Detected with bare eyes (of a sleuth who has never done Western blot). Icahn School of Med at Mt. Sinai. pubmed 27143420
4
4
37
1
1
36
1
3
32
I communicated with the EIC of J. Chemical Neuroanatomy (Elsevier) many many times about this. He kept promising actions and even asked me what tools I use, and I told him. A random check today on a recent paper indicates a lack of improvement.
2
5
31
Sleuth pointed out the pasted part in A, author volunteered to correct B, incorrectly, saying .... "I am not very skilled at putting these figures together....". Now we just don't know.
@lonnibesancon
.
3
3
28
The "Survival of the Fittest" mentality is the source of more than a couple of vile things that plagued our culture. Now it is also plaguing the science community. About time to be woke on this one.
@SocialImpurity
@mumumouse2
Alternatively, it seems like you are putting the personal responsibility on the people who are being honest and not producing flashy results because of it, while suggesting they don't belong. That attitude is benefitting the fraudsters.
2
0
4
4
1
28
Just as I was about to conclude that Elsevier doesn't do anything about anything, here comes evidence of some effort. Appreciated it! Reported last May.
1
4
26
The black line has several segments that seem to be identical repeats or very similar. See green, yellow, and blue boxes. I most likely missed a lot, but am better than AI on this one haha. pubmed 35759866
1
1
26
I sent about equal numbers of reports (hundreds?) to
@SpringerNature
and
@ElsevierConnect
last year. But
@SpringerNature
retracted A LOT more. 👍
1
6
23
It is shocking that mice can find the platform in a 120cm pool on day 1 in about 10s on average, with two reaching almost immediately. Notwithstanding a visual cue was present. Yes yes their tracking software "blinked" too long, I am sure that's the reason.
@VVoikar
2
2
22
How many times is too many times to re-use one's control data without acknowledging it in later papers? Yellow arrows point to data identical in 3 papers.
3
2
23
This email from an Elsevier publisher is a bit perplexing. This is after I raised the concern that an Elsevier journal has many "problematic" papers. They are just implementing AI software, after I have been telling them about the problem for two years? The"Prof" is the new EIC.
5
1
22
Fourth from this group. I can't think of how adjusting for baseline, age, and BMI could lead to identical error bars on all measures between two separate groups.
2
0
21
@Spottingthespot
I just remembered seeing those numbers in one paper when I saw them in the second paper.
3
0
19
Not simple overlap. Several aspects were changed. pubmed 27810782
1
0
19
1) Different mouse models, 2) re-use not mentioned, 2) blots were partial in the 2012 (earlier) study, 4) supposed to show 4 lanes in the 2012 study and 8 lanes in the 2015 study?
1
1
19
0
2
19
This goofy stuff has finally been retracted. Well, only took 13 months, not bad. See here for a lot more problems .
2
5
19
In what way does the "corrected" image make any sense? European Journal of Pharmacology will allow it. pubmed 36870913
5
4
18
*This is a scrutiny/discussion*. This study shows an astonishing effect of 30-day fish oil in repairing axons and drastically reducing APP levels in rats. It seems very very amazing. PMID 20635852
@jsmoliga
1
5
26
There seems to be more than one vertical breaks. pubmed 21820214
1
1
18
Fifth (all in Elsevier journals), and I am mildly paranoid. There are MANY expression of concerns on this group's studies. But not many retractions.
2
0
17
Retraction. Long overdue.
4
2
17
This is fun. Looking for differences instead of similarities. pubmed 29474924
0
1
17
I will always remember this reply when I'm exhausted and blurry eyed from screening papers in the future.
@mumumouse2
medicine is actually rife with these types of papers. it makes it extremely difficult to determine what is a real effect/a finding worth considering. at least in bio or other fields you can validate with little consequence, with medicine a bad study can have deadly consequences
2
0
18
1
4
17
Sometimes one paper is enough to convince you that there needs to be a "file". This is one of those. In Journal of Neuroscience.
2
2
17
We are still looking at the Mt Sinai paper I mentioned yesterday. pubmed 27143420. pubpeer link here
1
1
16
Retracted a year after it was flagged. That is pretty fast.
@SpringerNature
is doing a lot better than Elsevier on this front, in my experience dealing with integrity folks in both.
1
3
16
Why would you use a rat picture to illustrate a mouse experiment?
1
3
15
Tiny error bars triggered a scan.
@ImageTwinAI
found the same image representing different treatment groups in 2 papers.
2
3
16
Differently cropped and brightness adjusted. Might deserve a M word.
1
1
16
I am perfectly happy to believe the same SDs (0.13) in most columns is a mistake, but it's kind of cavalier that the authors didn't bother to reply or anything since I flagged it in January. pubmed: 36899414
0
1
16
Continuing what we started yesterday. This is in J. Neuroscience 2014. PMID24501346.
1
2
14
My account was hacked and suspended 2 weeks ago. X does not seem to have live humans to help, hence this new account. Please add
@MicrobiomDigest
@schrag_matthew
@cpiller
@Thatsregrettab1
@jamesheathers
@TigerBB8
@PSBROOKES
@nickwizzo
and many more friends I don't want to lose!
6
8
15
A certain level of data anomaly needs to be considered as "hard evidence" in the future. If we can only/primarily rely on on image evidence, then what happens when people start to launder their images with AI tools which *will* become more and more available?
2
1
15
This data anomaly was listed as one of the reasons to RETRACT this paper!
@SpringerNature
is very progressive in terms of heeding (traditionally ignored) data anomaly evidence!
0
3
14
To be on this team is most incredible learning experience.
The stories relied on determined whistleblowers –
@schrag_matthew
worked for months to examine the work of
@USC_ZilkhaNeuro
leader Berislav Zlokovic. And Kevin Patrick,
@mumumouse2
,
@microbiomdigest
,
@mike_rossner
made key contributions/confirmations 2/4
1
3
18
0
1
13
I don't know anything about this🙃
29 papers from a neurology professor at
@RushUniversity
@RushMedical
have raised concerns on
@Pubpeer
. Papers involve research on cinnamon to treat brain disorders.
Leonid Schneider summarizes the concerns at
@4BetterScience
11
23
98
2
3
13
2nd and 3rd month MAS (a clinical scale 0-4) data appear identical. The cerebrolysin group has the same SD in months 1,2,and 3. This was used to shown clinical efficacy of the drug, so maybe a little scrutiny is not too rude. pubmed 38585517
1
0
13
3 out of 4 groups overlap. The merge images are intriguingly different. Pubmed 26125041
1
0
13
Part 1: The Erratum was published after I pointed out the red circle in A. Supposedly the correct image was made from the Original blots. I can't seem to match most of it. And the retina and PRE blots seem same in the correction.
1
2
13
It's a privilege to learn from the best 🙏🙏🙏
@mumumouse2
That is quite a lot! There are 8000 that were retracted from Hindawi Special Issues, which were mainly done through its current publisher Wiley, without specific contributions of volunteers, so 40/2000 is a lot.
Thank you so much for your contributions. Much appreciated ❤️
0
1
9
0
1
13
Saw this tweet on someone's phone in the elevator after work. Oh good God, the days when I'm only known to the Columbia community as the "woman who runs the mouse behavior core" may be numbered.
1
1
12
I agree that mistakes happen and MANY image issues were caused by mistakes. But a good sleuth (that I hope to become someday) differentiates mistakes and non-mistakes. Here is an example.
2
1
12
Hemorrhage data in stroke patients in a clinical trial. Not sure I trust it. pubmed: 20968198
1
1
12
I begged RW to write the case many moons ago. Glad to see this tweet. Thank you!
“Critics claim to find flaws in dozens of Alzheimer’s studies by Temple scientist.”
3
14
25
0
2
12
Since there are more people willing to talk about error bars, let's revisit this PNAS paper (pubmed: 35353605) where I have questions about missing error bars in B and D. N=3.
3
0
12