(12-05-2022, 02:35 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: No explanation for how so many of his papers, including the senior author ones, ended up with falsified data.
You make a big leap there from images that have had some perceived anomalies to branding that as falsified data. Did you read the PubPeer discussions?
In one of the PubPeer comments, Bik links to media accounts about her concerns. To what purpose?
Several of the articles have author comments in response to the current tempest. Obviously, this is all ongoing & nothing is final yet. Most(all?) of the author comments include a claim of responsibility for the figures by whomever produced them. One author's comment indicates the claimed issue is not in their archived final submission and so must have been done at a later publication stage (wow). Another indicates that at the time of publication, it was common practice to cut blots to assemble figures. Another issue was a duplicated image obviously inserted in error, as it didn't match the figure legend.
Give it time to get worked out. Calls for resignation upon hearing claims seem inappropriate.