Charles Piller

And I'll never forget this moment where I went to this particular expert who was a world-class expert in the science behind some of these papers, showed him the dossier, and he came back to me and he said, he was sort of, astonished himself because he found in the dossier of apparently doctored papers, a paper that he had personally peer reviewed and approved for publication. He had no idea.

And, but in seeing it in the dossier where the, the image is taken apart and it's analyzed step-by-step what might've happened, uh, He said, of course, I should have seen this. But we're not asked to do that. We're not trained to do it. What we're trained to do is look at the science and see if it makes sense. We're not trained to look for possible fraud. We trust our colleagues.

And, but in seeing it in the dossier where the, the image is taken apart and it's analyzed step-by-step what might've happened, uh, He said, of course, I should have seen this. But we're not asked to do that. We're not trained to do it. What we're trained to do is look at the science and see if it makes sense. We're not trained to look for possible fraud. We trust our colleagues.

And, but in seeing it in the dossier where the, the image is taken apart and it's analyzed step-by-step what might've happened, uh, He said, of course, I should have seen this. But we're not asked to do that. We're not trained to do it. What we're trained to do is look at the science and see if it makes sense. We're not trained to look for possible fraud. We trust our colleagues.

We trust their scientific expertise and their veracity as scientists. And so I would say, in answer to your question, should peer review change? The short answer is yes. People should all be somewhat on the lookout for this. It shouldn't be this obscure thing that people don't even think about when they're reviewing papers.

We trust their scientific expertise and their veracity as scientists. And so I would say, in answer to your question, should peer review change? The short answer is yes. People should all be somewhat on the lookout for this. It shouldn't be this obscure thing that people don't even think about when they're reviewing papers.

We trust their scientific expertise and their veracity as scientists. And so I would say, in answer to your question, should peer review change? The short answer is yes. People should all be somewhat on the lookout for this. It shouldn't be this obscure thing that people don't even think about when they're reviewing papers.

But I think the primary responsibility should lie with the journals themselves. They need to put in place sophisticated and methodological procedures for checking papers the same way they review papers to see if they are scientifically important enough to publish. They need to make sure that they're scientifically honest enough to publish.

But I think the primary responsibility should lie with the journals themselves. They need to put in place sophisticated and methodological procedures for checking papers the same way they review papers to see if they are scientifically important enough to publish. They need to make sure that they're scientifically honest enough to publish.

But I think the primary responsibility should lie with the journals themselves. They need to put in place sophisticated and methodological procedures for checking papers the same way they review papers to see if they are scientifically important enough to publish. They need to make sure that they're scientifically honest enough to publish.

Fortunately, there's software tools that make a big difference in helping check for that nowadays. And so both using those tools and then having a human being review the results is a critical first step. Now, this can cost money.

Fortunately, there's software tools that make a big difference in helping check for that nowadays. And so both using those tools and then having a human being review the results is a critical first step. Now, this can cost money.

Fortunately, there's software tools that make a big difference in helping check for that nowadays. And so both using those tools and then having a human being review the results is a critical first step. Now, this can cost money.

Journals don't want to spend the money, but look, if they're going to represent science properly, if they're going to prevent us being steered off into wrong directions and dead ends, it's essential that they start to get serious about this process.

Journals don't want to spend the money, but look, if they're going to represent science properly, if they're going to prevent us being steered off into wrong directions and dead ends, it's essential that they start to get serious about this process.

Journals don't want to spend the money, but look, if they're going to represent science properly, if they're going to prevent us being steered off into wrong directions and dead ends, it's essential that they start to get serious about this process.

Yeah, they put so much emphasis on impact factor. Maybe we should put a bigger emphasis on fraud factor. There we go. You mentioned that specifically within Alzheimer's research, there's been the issue with this fraud because of the initial basis for the amyloid hypothesis.

Yeah, they put so much emphasis on impact factor. Maybe we should put a bigger emphasis on fraud factor. There we go. You mentioned that specifically within Alzheimer's research, there's been the issue with this fraud because of the initial basis for the amyloid hypothesis.

Yeah, they put so much emphasis on impact factor. Maybe we should put a bigger emphasis on fraud factor. There we go. You mentioned that specifically within Alzheimer's research, there's been the issue with this fraud because of the initial basis for the amyloid hypothesis.

Does that mean everything we know or at least thought we knew about Alzheimer's is actually fraught with major error and we need to go back to the drawing board? Because my initial education on the Alzheimer's disease model is amyloid hypothesis, tau protein, other conditions, vascular dementia being looped into it.