ERROR
@error.reviews
ERROR is a bug bounty program for science
https://error.reviews/
@malte.the100.ci @ruben.the100.ci
@ianhussey.mmmdata.io @jamiecummins.bsky.social
Our DMs are open - send us any tips, stories, or examples of error detection and correction in science.
https://error.reviews/
@malte.the100.ci @ruben.the100.ci
@ianhussey.mmmdata.io @jamiecummins.bsky.social
Our DMs are open - send us any tips, stories, or examples of error detection and correction in science.
At ERROR, we cannot compete with million-dollar bounties for whistleblowers. But it is great to see sleuthing work rewarded, and institutions admitting when their researchers engaged in misconduct.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Agrees to Pay $15 Million to Settle Fraud Allegations Related to Scientific Research Grants. The relator [Sholto David] will receive $2,625,000 under today’s settlement.
www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/d...
www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/d...
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Agrees to Pay $15 Million to Settle Fraud Allegations Related to Scientific Research Grants
BOSTON – Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. (Dana-Farber) has agreed to pay $15 million to resolve allegations that, between 2014 and 2024, it made materially false statements and certifications relat...
www.justice.gov
December 18, 2025 at 12:31 PM
At ERROR, we cannot compete with million-dollar bounties for whistleblowers. But it is great to see sleuthing work rewarded, and institutions admitting when their researchers engaged in misconduct.
Post-publication peer review is at it best when it's thoughtful, scrupulous, steeped in detail – and challenges key claims of the paper. @janhove.bsky.social's discussion of a recent paper on multilingualism exemplifies this.
A recent study purports to have found that multilingualism protects against accelerated ageing. I've taken a closer look at it, and it doesn't look good.
New blog post: "Does multilingualism really protect against accelerated ageing? Some critical comments"
janhove.github.io/posts/2025-1...
New blog post: "Does multilingualism really protect against accelerated ageing? Some critical comments"
janhove.github.io/posts/2025-1...
December 17, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Post-publication peer review is at it best when it's thoughtful, scrupulous, steeped in detail – and challenges key claims of the paper. @janhove.bsky.social's discussion of a recent paper on multilingualism exemplifies this.
Metascientists step up as role models for a healthy error culture in science. Here is a great case where an author and a critical reader collaborated to set the record straight.
I made an error that I found thanks to @lukaswallrich.bsky.social. The code and preprint have been corrected/updated. Effects on false positive rates are smaller and only for alternative and correlation method but I think the overall argument still works.
December 8, 2025 at 8:13 AM
Metascientists step up as role models for a healthy error culture in science. Here is a great case where an author and a critical reader collaborated to set the record straight.
Voluntary retraction remains a key way to put scientific self-correction into practice. Zhu and Holmes (2024) did the right thing when they realized that some of their results were based on a coding error.
Original: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
With retraction: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
Original: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
With retraction: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
APA PsycNet
psycnet.apa.org
December 2, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Voluntary retraction remains a key way to put scientific self-correction into practice. Zhu and Holmes (2024) did the right thing when they realized that some of their results were based on a coding error.
Original: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
With retraction: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
Original: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
With retraction: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...
Many error remain to be found in clinical trials. Patients deserve reliable results. Kudos to these authors for their persistent work to correct the record.
"In 2019 we notified journals about serious integrity concerns in 172 clinical trials. Over five years later, only 22 have been retracted. The 135 unretracted trials have 1989 citations in systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and consensus statements"
[paraphrased]
www.bmj.com/content/390/...
[paraphrased]
www.bmj.com/content/390/...
December 2, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Many error remain to be found in clinical trials. Patients deserve reliable results. Kudos to these authors for their persistent work to correct the record.
Congratulations to @simine.com for winning the Einstein Foundation Individual Award! 🎉
A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.
A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.
November 24, 2025 at 1:21 PM
Congratulations to @simine.com for winning the Einstein Foundation Individual Award! 🎉
A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.
A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.
Reposted by ERROR
I think this is an overly pessimistic take from the @bmj.com.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
November 14, 2025 at 8:18 PM
I think this is an overly pessimistic take from the @bmj.com.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
Synchronous Robustness Reports could explore implications of different analytical choices – but they could still suffer from bias. Hardwicke argues that preregistration is crucial to prevent it.
@tomhardwicke.bsky.social
@tomhardwicke.bsky.social
Risk of bias in robustness reports: https://osf.io/wj26e
November 14, 2025 at 2:54 PM
Synchronous Robustness Reports could explore implications of different analytical choices – but they could still suffer from bias. Hardwicke argues that preregistration is crucial to prevent it.
@tomhardwicke.bsky.social
@tomhardwicke.bsky.social
Are methodological and causal inference errors creating a false impression that the gut microbiome causes autism? In this strong analysis, Mitchell, Dahly, and Bishop question the evidence.
They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.
They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.
The link between the gut #microbiome and autism is not backed by science, researchers say.
Read the full opinion piece in @cp-neuron.bsky.social: spkl.io/63322AbxpA
@wiringthebrain.bsky.social, @statsepi.bsky.social, & @deevybee.bsky.social
Read the full opinion piece in @cp-neuron.bsky.social: spkl.io/63322AbxpA
@wiringthebrain.bsky.social, @statsepi.bsky.social, & @deevybee.bsky.social
November 14, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Are methodological and causal inference errors creating a false impression that the gut microbiome causes autism? In this strong analysis, Mitchell, Dahly, and Bishop question the evidence.
They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.
They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.
New Nature podcast episode about ERROR and the Perspectives on Scientific Error workshop!
Researchers are trialling all sorts of inventive ways to root out errors.
Scientists are human. So, sometimes mistakes slip through the cracks. To make science as robust as possible, though, they've created all sorts of methods to seal those cracks.
I explore these in a new @nature.com podcast.
Scientists are human. So, sometimes mistakes slip through the cracks. To make science as robust as possible, though, they've created all sorts of methods to seal those cracks.
I explore these in a new @nature.com podcast.
AI, bounties and culture change, how scientists are taking on errors
Hear the biggest stories from the world of science | 21/07/25
www.nature.com
July 30, 2025 at 7:18 AM
New Nature podcast episode about ERROR and the Perspectives on Scientific Error workshop!
Reposted by ERROR
“We pay experts to examine important and influential scientific publications for errors ... We expect most published research to contain some errors ... our reward system pays bonuses to both authors and reviewers even when minor errors are found ..."
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...
The ERROR project: “We pay experts to examine important and influential scientific publications for errors . . . We expect most published research to contain at least some errors . . . our reward sy...
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
July 13, 2025 at 1:12 PM
“We pay experts to examine important and influential scientific publications for errors ... We expect most published research to contain some errors ... our reward system pays bonuses to both authors and reviewers even when minor errors are found ..."
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...
Reposted by ERROR
✨ ERROR (@error.reviews) is a bug-bounty program for science that seeks to estimate the prevalence and nature of errors. error.reviews
Home
ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications
error.reviews
July 24, 2025 at 2:52 PM
✨ ERROR (@error.reviews) is a bug-bounty program for science that seeks to estimate the prevalence and nature of errors. error.reviews
Reposted by ERROR
EU legislation requiring clothes be reused and recycled may be based on a numerical error in a 2017 NGO report where $460 billion was added instead of subtracted.
www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
Frontiers | The Emperor’s old clothes: a critical review of circular fashion in gray literature
www.frontiersin.org
February 15, 2025 at 10:23 AM
EU legislation requiring clothes be reused and recycled may be based on a numerical error in a 2017 NGO report where $460 billion was added instead of subtracted.
www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
Reposted by ERROR
Thank you for sharing this! Reposting to note a @nature.com feature from Aug 2024 by @plantnerd.bsky.social on the ERROR project. 🧪 www.nature.com/articles/d41...
January 22, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Thank you for sharing this! Reposting to note a @nature.com feature from Aug 2024 by @plantnerd.bsky.social on the ERROR project. 🧪 www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Reposted by ERROR
My first time acting as a recommender for the ERROR project.
Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.
Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.
New report! Hehman et al. (2018) "Disproportionate Use of Lethal Force in Policing Is Associated With Regional Racial Biases". Based on the review by @conjugateprior.org, we find a Major Error that affects a core conclusion. We recommend the authors seek a correction.
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
Hehman et al. (2018)
ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications
error.reviews
January 20, 2025 at 1:29 PM
My first time acting as a recommender for the ERROR project.
Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.
Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.
Reposted by ERROR
Really amazingly heartening to see that academic discourse can also be like this
We've had a paper reviewed by ERROR, which has concluded we had a "major error that affects a core conclusion"
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
New report! Hehman et al. (2018) "Disproportionate Use of Lethal Force in Policing Is Associated With Regional Racial Biases". Based on the review by @conjugateprior.org, we find a Major Error that affects a core conclusion. We recommend the authors seek a correction.
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
January 20, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Really amazingly heartening to see that academic discourse can also be like this
Reposted by ERROR
One of our main goals with @error.reviews is to shift scientific culture to identify, acknowledge, and correct errors in the literature. Eric’s response to the recent report on his work is a perfect example of embodying these values. Kudos to the authorship team and reviewer Will Lowe.
We've had a paper reviewed by ERROR, which has concluded we had a "major error that affects a core conclusion"
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
New report! Hehman et al. (2018) "Disproportionate Use of Lethal Force in Policing Is Associated With Regional Racial Biases". Based on the review by @conjugateprior.org, we find a Major Error that affects a core conclusion. We recommend the authors seek a correction.
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
January 20, 2025 at 10:27 PM
One of our main goals with @error.reviews is to shift scientific culture to identify, acknowledge, and correct errors in the literature. Eric’s response to the recent report on his work is a perfect example of embodying these values. Kudos to the authorship team and reviewer Will Lowe.
Reposted by ERROR
It is an honor for anyone to care enough about your work to check it, so thanks dudes. A mistake I suggest others not make is failing to ensure that all the data, from download, to merge, to analysis is available and each step, not just the final analysis, is reproducible.
We are grateful to Will Lowe for his diligent examination of the article and its materials, and to @erichehman.bsky.social, @jkflake.bsky.social, & @jimmycalanchini.bsky.social for their willingness to have their impactful work examined for errors.
January 20, 2025 at 10:15 PM
It is an honor for anyone to care enough about your work to check it, so thanks dudes. A mistake I suggest others not make is failing to ensure that all the data, from download, to merge, to analysis is available and each step, not just the final analysis, is reproducible.
Reposted by ERROR
This sounds like the same error I blogged about a few years ago, the common error of trying to control for population (or body size or many etc) by dividing the outcome variable by it. Props to the authors for seeking review and taking the issue seriously. Role models for us all.
January 21, 2025 at 7:38 AM
This sounds like the same error I blogged about a few years ago, the common error of trying to control for population (or body size or many etc) by dividing the outcome variable by it. Props to the authors for seeking review and taking the issue seriously. Role models for us all.
Reposted by ERROR
A ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ model response to finding problems in your published research. If you’ve published more than a few papers, you too have almost certainly made at least one mistake, so we should normalise addressing them like this!
Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively
Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively
We've had a paper reviewed by ERROR, which has concluded we had a "major error that affects a core conclusion"
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
New report! Hehman et al. (2018) "Disproportionate Use of Lethal Force in Policing Is Associated With Regional Racial Biases". Based on the review by @conjugateprior.org, we find a Major Error that affects a core conclusion. We recommend the authors seek a correction.
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
January 21, 2025 at 9:34 AM
A ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ model response to finding problems in your published research. If you’ve published more than a few papers, you too have almost certainly made at least one mistake, so we should normalise addressing them like this!
Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively
Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively
Reposted by ERROR
THIS is how science works. A great and honorable reaction - especially in these times of resistance to facts and smug self-righteousness. Thanks to @erichehman.bsky.social & @error.reviews!
We've had a paper reviewed by ERROR, which has concluded we had a "major error that affects a core conclusion"
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
New report! Hehman et al. (2018) "Disproportionate Use of Lethal Force in Policing Is Associated With Regional Racial Biases". Based on the review by @conjugateprior.org, we find a Major Error that affects a core conclusion. We recommend the authors seek a correction.
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
January 20, 2025 at 8:44 PM
THIS is how science works. A great and honorable reaction - especially in these times of resistance to facts and smug self-righteousness. Thanks to @erichehman.bsky.social & @error.reviews!