A6_Workshop

Thursday, 15 October | 5:00–6:30 p.m. | Herrenhausen Palace | Room X

• Jana Christopher, Image Data Integrity Analyst, FEBS Press, Heidelberg
• Dr. Ophélie Fraisier-VannierAssociate professor, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT)
• Dr. Stan van Pelt, Freelance journalist & Radboud University, Nijmegen
• Florian Sturm, Freelance journalist, Leipzig,
• Noémie Berroir, Science Journalist, TheMetaNews, Paris [Moderator]

Paper mills, AI-generated manuscripts, manipulated images, bought authorships: research misconduct is scaling up—and so is the risk of journalists amplifying it: Science journalists increasingly face a dilemma, namely the literature is expanding fast, while parts of it are being gamed systematically. The explosion in the number of scientific publications has inevitably been accompanied by an increase in poor-quality articles, as evidenced by duplicated and altered images and the presence of “tortured expressions”. Retractions often arrive late (or not at all), institutions can be slow to act, and press offices may keep promoting shaky findings. At the same time, covering fraud can backfire: sensationalism, overgeneralisation, or naming doubts too early can harm legitimate researchers and erode trust.

This panel brings together science sleuthing and forensic expertise to show how reporters can detect red flags, verify sources, cover fraud without feeding hype, and turn individual cases into accountability reporting that strengthens public trust. Thus, it has become paramount to better understand this crisis, its foundations and its development, but also to develop basic reflexes to better assess the reliability of scientific literature.

In this workshop, two researchers will introduce their work as “scientific detectives” who have embarked on image forensics and text mining. And we will explore the role of science journalists in this context – as watchdogs, as interpreters, but also as potential enablers of a broken system.

Be aware: The goal of this session isn’t cynicism about science; it’s better verification, clearer communication of uncertainty, and stronger watchdog reporting that ultimately supports trust. This session is designed as a practical, solutions-driven roadmap for reporting in a “contaminated evidence” environment.