Talk:Elisabeth Bik

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Square Headshot Elisabeth Bik.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested restoration at c:User talk:Túrelio#File:Square Headshot Elisabeth Bik.png. EllenCT (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Scientific integrity consultant ? Or Lobbyist / influencer ?

In her ScienceMag profile in march 2019 , californian Elisabeth Bik was described as a scientist interested in scientific integrity for free but looking to be paid for that in her resume available on https://microbiomedigestdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/elisabeth_bik_cv_april-2020.pdf she says "March 2019 – present ● Consultant, Harbers Bik LLC. Consultancy for microbiome and scientific integrity research. Customers include US and European universities, scientific publishers, start-up companies, and lawyers.". So her job includes to demolish others scientific jobs but we don't know any of her clients or the name of the clients of the lawyers. Her own integrity seems questionable, especially has she retweeted yesterday for 24 hours to the 61000 + follower account a promotion for remdisivir, a drug from Gilead californian lab, who could be included as "scientific publisher". I would call her job as influencer or lobbyist. Is there any reliable secondary source to describe her "job" in a neutral way ? Mascarponette (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There is at least one article in _Nature News_, so a credible source, that refers to Elisabeth Bik as “full-time research-integrity consultant”. I will add this reference, and remove the banner. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03529-w Qx8314 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Mascarponette You are forgetting that her client could be Science and Humanity as a whole. Maybe she is trying to ferret out poorly done or fraudulent publications in the interest of accuracy and truth. Perhaps, if someone uses illustrations that are duplicates and claims they are different, they deserve to have their fraud called out. Isn't that what Peer Review is all about? With your obvious desire to discredit her and her work, I wonder if it is she who is seeking to demolish the scientific jobs of others OR if you are trying to demolish her scientific job because she pointed out the truth, and for some reason you did not like that. DaKine (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"She pointed the truth" ? Ah Ah Ah. Look what she put for 24 hours on top of her tweeter account https://twitter.com/VirusWar/status/1249057996568694792/photo/1 a story saying that Remdesivir from Gilead is efficient for severe patients. This study is the crappest marketing scandal ever. More autors than patients (53), patients were grapped from january to march all over the world at places where they were lucky (not in places where it didn't work) and they refer to average mortality rate of 50 % in ICU but it is far less in Italy. How can she promote such crap on one side and investigate deeply other study (like treatment of Professor Raoult which has 2500 patients of Covid19 and less than 0.5% fatality rate, the lowest in the world) ? Can she disclose the name of her clients ? In scientific publication, authors have to disclose conflict of interests. So she widely criticizes some scientific publications but she never have to say if she has any conflic of interest, how can that be possible ? How can she claim herself expert in integrity if we can't check her integrity ? And what about this sentence in summary "Bik has gained widespread recognition", never seen that in a Wikipedia page, Wikipedia is not an Advert. Mascarponette (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The article describes Dr. Bik objectively and accurately. "Widespread recognition" is common language in Wikipedia (a quick google search will bring up tons of precedent, e.g. Gemma Chan, Adrien Brody, Joshua Neustein, Amy Smart). Neheller (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A small number of skeptics are accomplished at chasing academic misconduct & research integrity. She's become one of the most well-known ones, especially famed for her work on image manipulation. That's why she was invited to speak at SkeptiCal 2019. i.e., she's known outside specialist circles. I heard her talk, "Misconduct in Scientific Papers: Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification." I've filed complaints with journals & universities against such things, gotten a few papers retracted, and editors dropped for plagiarizing articles in their own journal, so this is a familiar topic.JohnMashey (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Advert banner

Mascarponette You challenged above the job description, which I fixed and added a specific reference to a Nature piece using that job title for Elisabeth Bik. You then added twice the “Advert” banner, which was removed by another user first, and now by me. We both deemed (and apparently so does DaKine) that the content is appropriate in tone. If there are specific sentences or facts you want to flag, please use the Talk page here to reach consensus, instead of unilaterally adding a generic banner. --Qx8314 (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made a slight change to the wording in the lead. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Additionnaly, I added in the introduction summary that she is a blogger, but it was reverted despite she is mainly well known for that. Was the revert related to the fact that she called her 62 000 twitter fans to spam her Wikipedia page ? I also note that she changed her resume on her website to remove the compromizing parts I pointed above (that she claimed to be paid by lawyers or scientific publishers). Mascarponette (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it was reverted because she is mainly well-known to be a microbiologist and advocate for scientific integrity. Lots of scientists run blogs in order to further disseminate their work, but to call them "bloggers" is a relegation. Neheller (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I also suggest that Mascarponette might wish to review WP:BLP, noting particularly that "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Some of the comments in the section above, particularly those impugning Bik's integrity, are a clear breach of this policy unless supported explicitly by clearly identified reliable secondary sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I just pointed out that somebody that declares herself as "Expert in Science Integrity" or "Science Integrity Consultant" should have really strong secondary references asserting that because there not many people in that domain, so, if she is the reference in science integrity, it would be interesting to have such source, but we have not. As far as I know, there is only on reliable source centered on her profile, it is https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/eye-for-manipulation--a-profile-of-elisabeth-bik-65839 this article doesn't say at all that she is expert in science integrity but that somebody else is !Then you suggest me that the integrity of somebody who declares herself as Expert in Science Integrity is not questionable, well, that's you point of view and a bit circular. But I'm a bit confused about these kind of job "Science Integrity Consultant" that looks a bit like a UFO for me, journalists have a deontology, I'm not sure there is one yet for "scientific integrity consultant". So she declare's herself to do that job, she's got a blog called "Science integrety digest" where she criticizes integrity of lots of scientific jobs and people and she declare's that science integrity is now her full time job and put in previous version of her CV that her customers are lawyers and scientific publishers. Maybe I made a confusion when I asked whom paid her to criticizes others, sorry about that, beceause some suggests she is paid to have their papers reviewed before they are sent to scientific editors. Fine, as Wikipedia should have reliable source that she is effectively doing such a job, it is very easy to check that : usually on scientific paper, there is a section called "Thanks" where authors put the names of the people that helped them. So they should put her name in her section. I looked carefully on her blog about the things referencing to her, there are some news article but no scientific paper, except the ones where she is the author. So we need more sources for such a extraordinary claim that she is "scientific integrity consultant" Mascarponette (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So the very first reference of the article links to Nature, where we can read: "(Bik is now a full-time research-integrity consultant.)". So this information as a strong reference.

Then, about your explanation about her paid work for which she is not thanked, it has already been answered on fr.wp: reviews are anonymous, so the writer can not thank a particular reviewer. Your argument has already been debunked on the talk page of the french article, why won't you take this into account and copy it here? Gyrostat (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Article of nature is not centered on her profile, so they just reported what she said to her. I'm not talking about the reviews by the editors but the one done before by the science integrity expert (if any) on purpose of the publisher's, they should put a thank you section. Please note that oftenly Elisabeth criticizes the "conflict of interest" section of a scientific paper if somebody in the thank you section have an unlisted conflict of interest. Mascarponette (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The article of Nature is not centered, and thus can not qualify as a reference for the notability of Elisabeth Bik. But the article of Nature is a valid reference for her job has a research-integrity consultant. Gyrostat (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Mascarponette I'm going to assume good faith here and trust that you didn't actually understand what "Her own integrity seems questionable" means when you wrote it. That's more than a statement that there is inadequate sourcing, and carries the direct implication that she in fact lacks integrity. If that wasn't what you meant then you should strike the text. And on the principal issue, there is perfectly adequate sourcing for her work, including Maddox Prize 2019, Eye for Manipulation: A Profile of Elisabeth Bik, In the news: January Digest, Hunting for Fraud Full Time, Manipulation within a photo should always result in a retraction: Elisabeth Bik, Hydroxychloroquine Questions Intensify as Journal Says Its Drug Study 'Did Not Meet Expected Standards', Publisher expresses reservations about hydroxychloroquine study it printed, The Anatomies of Two Academic Scandals, Forskere er kritiske til studien som viser at hydroksyklorokin virker mot covid-19, and Why experts are skeptical of studies that seemed to show promising results from using a decades-old malaria drug to treat the coronavirus. You should, perhaps, consider the Law of holes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)