- don't say "there is a concern the figure is wrong". Concern is not the salient point - correctness is. Is the data wrong or right?
- why are we focusing on the figures at all? Is the data correct but the figures don't represent? Or is the incorrect data correctly represented by the figures? This is a critical point left unaddressed
> the pseudonymous Claire Francis began pointing out potential image duplications and other manipulations in Semenza’s work on PubPeer
For example:
Retraction: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2213288119 Paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321510111
This could be a fundamental problem with the experiments that possibly could invalidate the conclusions or just a bug when creating figures for the paper. But if it was the latter surely a correction could be made fairly quickly - which suggests it's the former.
"Confirmatory experimentation has now been performed and the results can be found in a preprint article posted on bioRxiv, ‘Homeostatic responses to hypoxia by the carotid body and adrenal medulla are based on mutual antagonism between HIF-1α and HIF-2α’"
For bonus points, identify the use of the passive voice in the previous sentence--not every use of the passive is exonerative, just as you can be exonerative without using the passive.
I don't mean to defend Strunk and White any more than the next guy, but comments like this one make me think the pendulum can also swing back too far. If my pedantry annoys you, please feel free to disregard... I'm cringing at the realization that I just spent the last 5 minutes writing out this comment.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/...
But people like to add some technical detail to their argument, such as stating that the sentence is written in the passive voice, as if that proves their point. Strunk and White (and the countless people that mindlessly copied them) have made the passive voice the perfect candidate for this, to the point where it becomes an accusation, and any accusation of hiding agency is simply called "passive voice."
But the analysis that the actor is missing is also shallow. In scientific communication, the actor often doesn't matter. It's the why, the how, the what a paper need to answer, not the who. The authors take responsibility for the (unconfirmed) fault. In that sense, there's little to critique about the passage, whereas the commenter makes it sound like a cover-up. If (s)he wants to know whose concerns they were, just say so, and state the reason, but don't hide it behind a (wrong) technicality. That just makes it look like the pot calling the kettle black.
But we can get lost in technical subclassification, when saying something is written in the passive voice is not the most precise term, even when it's obvious what is meant. Strunk and White, and the countless people who've used their rules of thumb, have helped popularise common ways of identifying why communication is unsatisfying or vague, and how to fix them.
But you saying pot calling the kettle black is also shallow. In no way was the comment written in the (right and true, or Strunk and White) passive voice, which would be the correct way to deploy that phrase. If you want to disagree, then do so, but don't hide behind a (wrong) idiom. That just makes a hot potato look like a piece of cake.