![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ma5-15569_ma5-15671_annotated.png?w=1024\")
This course, called Open as Antidote \u2013 addressing the big challenges facing science, was part of the 2026 FORCE11 Scholarly Communication Institute which ran with the theme of 'FSCI2026: Critical Thinking and evolving open scholarship in the era of AI'
These blog posts are a series of 'explainer' pre-reading to start participants thinking about the issues the course considered in relation to the general decline of scholarly publishing. The blog posts in this series considered the problem of questionable research practices, the mechanisms to manage these through corrections and retractions, the problem of university rankings and the uneasy nexus between Open and AI. They finish with some suggestions of where we go from here.
Originally written 28 July 2026.
Contrary to the nomenclature, 'authorship' of a research article does not actually mean that all listed authors actually wrote the article, rather it is a list of people who made a contribution to the work. That said, the term does have a very specific meaning, set down in 1988 by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors which lists four criteria for authorship including a substantial contribution, drafting and reviewing, final approval and agreement to be accountable for the content. That last criteria refers to the understanding that credit in research goes hand in hand with responsibility.
Attributing 'authorship' correctly can be complex, leading to guides such as this one from the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research notes in its guide for authorship that it must be an honest reflection of contribution to research, assigned fairly, and consistently with established disciplinary practice and communicated clearly and transparently between contributors to the research. The guide also specifically states that authorship should not be 'gift' or 'guest' authorship.
Gift or guest authorship is where a person is listed as an author without having made any substantive contribution to the work. This can manifest in multiple ways. A 2023 study surveyed over 1300 European PhD students across multiple countries and disciplines. A significant proportion (approximately three in 10) reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to \"a person in power\". Of those people who had granted guest authorship, half had been told to do so by the person involved. The understanding of what constituted authorship appeared to vary across the students. In the same year, a study of Australian early career researchers identified dissatisfaction, bullying and 'questionable research practices'. One of the practices described was pressure to include or exclude authors on papers.
A different mechanism for institutions to increase the number of papers they can claim is the practice of 'multi-affiliation'. A 2023 paper noting this is a growing problem for scientific integrity found that in some cases authors were listing 20 or 30 affiliations and called for \"careful scrutiny of the actual scientific contributions made by these authors and the importance of safeguarding the integrity of scientific output and networks\". One example is a Saudi institution that was paying foreign researchers up to \u20ac70,000 a year to lie about their place of employment, in order to artificially elevate Saudi institutions in international academic rankings.
Hyper-prolific authors are another manifestation of this problem. A 2018 study considered authors who has published more than 72 papers in any one calendar year between 2000 and 2016. After eliminating physics authors (physics papers often include upwards of 1000 members and famously in one case had over 5000 authors), the researchers were able to identify a distinct pattern of increased number of people who were publishing at this high rate over time. The paper suggests \"loose definitions of authorship, and an unfortunate tendency to reduce assessments to counting papers, muddy how credit is assigned\" with authorship. This may be a generous take on the situation. A 2023 article talked about a Spanish researcher publishing a paper every second day \u2013 many outside his area of speciality. The volume is so high \"he doesn't have time to read them\" prior to submission.
Given authorship on a paper is used to measure success or contribution for promotion there is incentive to have one's name on as many papers as possible. This opens up a commercial market. The idea of authorship for sale is not new. Indeed, in August 2023, Retraction Watch reported on the publisher Frontiers retracting nearly 40 papers across multiple journals linked to \"the unethical practice of buying or selling authorship on research papers\", reported in a press release on the company site.
Sometimes simply having a publishing association with people who have been suspected of buying or selling authorship can be problematic for authors. One example is an Australian author was involved in retractions of papers that had been coauthored with international authors who had been identified as advertising authorship for sale. In these cases, the papers had added several authors \"post-acceptance with claims of their significant contribution to the research\". In some cases this makes financial sense \u2013 if the recompensation for a paper by an institution is higher than the cost of buying the authorship, for example.
A different issue is to give a paper credibility by using the name of a prominent author in the author list without them knowing. This issue can cause problems for the unsuspecting researcher because fraudulent works can automatically be added to a researcher's profile, which could damage a researcher's career if not corrected. A different twist on problematic authorship is the invention of a fictional author at a prestigious university to increase the chances of a paper being accepted.
While authorship of publications is the central currency of most research assessment, citations of an author's work add in to other metrics, such as an author's 'h-index'. Journals also benefit from citations in terms of their Journal Impact Factor. University rankings also consider issues such as citations. Citations therefore have 'value' to authors, journals and universities and there are multiple ways these can be manipulated.
Citation cartels are becoming more prevalent, for example citation cartels in medical and dental journals where journals agreed to cite each other's publications to boost their own impact factors. The problems with this practice include the distortion of the impact factors of participating journals and undermining the integrity of the scientific process. Within the research community there are examples of citation manipulation. For example groups of mathematicians at institutions in China, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere have been artificially boosting their colleagues' citation counts by churning out low-quality papers that repeatedly reference their work. This means their universities apparently produce a greater number of highly cited maths papers each year than universities with a strong track record in the field.
Like the authorship issue, there is a market in citations. One study found a company that was offering 50 citations for USD300 or 100 citations for USD500. A particularly famous example of this is Larry the cat who was created in response to an advertisement from a paper mill offering to boost the buyer's citation count and h-index. The issue of coercive citation requests has been identified as an underexplored area of concern amongst journal authors, reviewer and editors.
Citations have also been inserted into the metadata about a work. This technique was uncovered when a computer scientist noted a large discrepancy between the citations in Google Scholar and Altmetrics. The former text mines PDFs, but Altmetrics uses CrossRef, a repository for unique identifiers for scholarly metadata. The references are inserted at some point into metadata files that are submitted to CrossRef and automatically ingested (metadata files can be submitted anytime after an article is published).
It should be noted that citation manipulation can backfire, with journals losing their impact factor for suspected citation manipulation. In 2024 seventeen journals lost their impact factor, and in 2025 twenty journals were affected.
Identify fraud can extend beyond people. In 2024 the Liverpool University Press write in two blogs about an issue they were managing where their website had been duplicated in something called 'brandjacking'. The duplicate site offers authors the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee. The press published both a description of the challenge they were facing as well as sharing their investigations and work they had to do to counter this. Another manifestation of this issue is a journal 'impersonation'. From June 2025, the Cambridge Law Journal has had to indicate on their website that they do not work with a list of organisations and that: \"Anyone contacted by the following organisations claiming that they offer publication in CLJ should be aware that we do not work with these companies\".
An alternate approach is to purchase a small legitimate journal from a reputable publisher and then turn it into a predatory, low-quality publication. A news report last year identified 36 journal titles where this had occurred. After the acquisition, the journals introduce or raise article processing charges and publish a much higher number of papers. These journals have been delisted from indexing databases such as Scopus and Web of Science which is likely one of the attractors to the buyers and publishing authors in the first place.
The above does not paint a very positive picture. It does not even encompass the full gamut of what is described as 'questionable research practices'. Consider the proliferation of fake peer reviews \u2013 in one instance in 2017 Springer retracted 107 papers from a single journal because they had been accepted with fake peer reviews.
It is not surprising that we are seeing headlines like There's far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit (August 2023), Why research fraud is getting worse (November 2023) and Why scientific fraud is suddenly everywhere (May 2024).
Originally written 28 July 2026.
What happens if something gets published by mistake? Is there a process to manage this? Yes
A core practice of publication is the management of debate and correction after publication. If the paper contains flaws that need to be addressed there is a process described by the Council of Publication Ethics for Expressions of Concern to be raised and the work can be corrected. If the concerns are serious the paper might need to be retracted. This process is considered to be an \"important element of the foundation of trust that distinguishes scholarly communications from other publication genres\".
Over the past few years, retractions have been on the increase. In December 2023 Nature reported that more than 10,000 research papers were retracted in that year. This was a record, noting that in that case the bulk of the retractions related to journals owned by the disgraced publisher Hindawi.
The following year a news report asked why biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years. Concerningly two thirds of the papers uncovered in the study being reported were withdrawn for reasons related to research misconduct. The study observed an increase in prevalence in Europe over the 20 years studied, with a possible reason for this that detection tools are becoming more effective. Regardless, the length of time the study covered does indicate this is not a new problem.
But what actually happens if a paper is retracted? Unfortunately, in many cases a retracted paper remains in circulation in some form. For example, one study considered 441 retracted papers in public health that had 2841 records across all distributors. The study found that less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all the resources they were available and that no retraction notices met all the criteria for a retraction. This means the majority of these retracted papers remain 'in the wild' and retracted papers continue to be cited.
Once cited, retracted papers perpetuate the problem. A study by a company that provides technology solutions for research integrity found that in the second quarter of 2025 9,445 articles contained references to retracted papers, stating the industry average retraction citation rate was 1.34%. There are also challenges with the period of time between publication and retraction, and delayed retractions enable flawed findings to distort secondary research. This means that the methodological or ethical flaws of these papers remain in the system. Equally journalists who report on research findings are also susceptible, with news coverage of retracted research focusing predominantly on high interest topics like COVID19, gender identity and controversial scientific claims.
Retractions are now such a problem that in some cases funding bodies are starting to crack down. One example is applicants to the Indian Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) Advanced Research Grants who will be obliged to disclose any retractions in the past five years and the reasons why these journal papers were removed from publication.
This lack of consistency on how to manage these issues has resulted in a Recommended Practice on the communication of retractions, removals, and expressions of concern from NISO. An article about the Recommended Practice notes: \"Consistent practice across the community is key to ensuring that retracted research is no longer shared and relied upon in research\". Some recommendations are obvious \u2013 including adding the word 'RETRACTED' to the title of the paper in all versions. But others point to the complexity, including the need to contact all other versions of the work such as preprints and versions in institutional repositories to inform them of the retraction status.
In all this is an expensive process - opening up questions about who pays.
In 2024 the Scholarly Kitchen asked 'Should Publishers Invoice Authors for Retraction Costs?', arguing that \"retractions represent a significant loss of time and effort invested by both researchers and peer reviewers\". The piece explores the accountability of different players in the publishing process and asks whether we could devise a system to hold all parties financially accountable.
At least one publisher has considered this issue, with the Institute of Physics pledging to donate authors fees from retracted papers to a publishing charity, Research4Life. The reasoning is that the publisher cannot refund the money in the instance the paper was retracted because it was from a papermill. They note that the article processing charges of retracted papers should not be kept by publishers because this would hinder incentives to correct the record.
We are living in an environment where trust in research and facts is under pressure. A 2025 event noted that research is facing major integrity challenges, with some of the prevailing incentives in the sector presenting \"a global systemic problem that requires a global systemic solution\". Research misconduct cases are increasing, with integrity sleuths uncovering instances of questionable research practices such as data manipulation. This is not restricted to smaller institutions, high profile researchers such as senior Harvard cancer researchers have been caught out. In 2023 the president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, resigned after an investigation found several of the papers he had authored contained manipulated data.
There have been attempts to address these questions of integrity with many countries establishing national offices including Canada, Japan, China and the UK. In Australia there have long been calls to also establish a national body to address research integrity, but to date, responsibility for the management of research integrity issues have remined in-house, with institutions required to appoint research integrity advisors and carry out investigations themselves. This approach has multiple challenges, not least the conflict of interest of an institution being responsible for managing an issue that could be reputationally problematic. For example, increased reporting of publication misconducts by an institution is associated with lower Trust Scores in the research institution involved.
The effectiveness of research integrity roles in institutions is under question. In almost two thirds of the 99 Australian institutions considered in one study had no information about their research integrity advisors on their websites, and shockingly 'some [research integrity advisors] only realised they had been appointed advisors when they were contacted by the census team'.
In summary, while there is a formal process for scholarly publishing to 'self-correct', in practice this is not working as intended. There is a lot of work to be done.
Originally written by 29 July 2026.
This blog post considers some of the reasons why we are in the situation we are.
It is reasonably straightforward to draw a causal line between questionable research practices and research assessment processes. Individuals are under pressure to publish in specific journals in order to gain promotion or grant funding. This graphic is an excellent description of the drivers for academics' need to publish in prestigious journals. It shows the common drivers for academic and universities of grants but identifies another driver in the landscape which is highly problematic and extremely influential \u2013 university rankings.
Despite being a 'global confidence trick', over the past couple of decades university rankings have increased their prominence worldwide. A good book that considers the impact of university rankings is Breaking Ranks \u2013 How the Rankings Industry Rules Higher Education and What to do about it which describes the extent to which a commercial product such as the US News & World Report has on the operation and strategy of the university landscape in the US. (In an act of deliberate self-promotion, here is a link to my review of the book).
Amongst the many criticisms of university rankings is their reliance on a narrow and incomplete sets of data. Three bibliometric products dominate the research assessment space. As an example, Web of Science and InCites (both Clarivate products) and SciVal (an Elsevier product) \u2013 collectively are used for the following research assessment processes: Journal Impact Factor, Times Higher Education Rankings, QS Rankings, ARWU rankings, Excellence in Research for Australia (2023), Research Excellence Framework (2021), amongst others. But these three products don't align well, with significant differences contributing to \"drastic changes in rank positions of universities, which are most prevalent for non-English-speaking universities and those outside the top positions in international university rankings\", according to one 2020 comparison.
And it is not just differences between these databases that are problematic, it is their incomplete coverage. A study from 2025 considered the 'long tail' of smaller and independent publishers. The study covered the period from 1980\u20132021 and retrieved 32% more articles from Dimensions compared to the 'more selective' WoS. There was a disciplinary bias - with the Dimensions' data including small publishers in the Social Sciences and the Arts and Humanities and picking up publications outside of English-speaking countries and/or those located in northwestern Europe. The authors noted that \"the rest of the world [is] relatively independent of the oligopoly.\"
This exclusion of smaller journals was also found in a substantial 2023 analysis of 25,671 journals that use Open Journal Systems as their publishing platform found that most were missing from the main commercial bibliographic databases. Between them these journals represented 5.8 million items; from 136 countries, with 79.9% in the Global South. The majority (84.2%) charge neither reader nor author, following the diamond open access model. \"For all their geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, 1.2% are indexed in the Web of Science and 5.7% in Scopus\". The authors point out that \"it is not that this literature is invisible, as 88% of it is found in Google Scholar due to its deliberate efforts to be globally inclusive\". They call for this to be an opportunity to decolonise knowledge distribution.
This is a serious issue for researchers outside the English speaking and northwestern Europe, with calls to rethink global indexing to include Middle East and North African (MENA) journals. This argument notes the technical (and resource hungry) barriers to inclusion in indexing platforms like Scopus or Web of Science and bemoans the privileging of English language content - a major challenge for areas such as public health or education policy where context matters.
It is this focus on such a small subset of all research globally that has surfaced arguments that university rankings entrench privilege. One example is the 2023 report from United Nations University International Institute for Global Health: World-class Universities? Interrogating the Biases and Coloniality of Global University Rankings . As the editor of The Lancet argues in an editorial \"Offline: The silencing of the South\": \"If we truly believe in equity, we need to resist and repudiate the current discriminatory and exclusionary system of university rankings.\" University Rankings are \"a system that stains the reputation of scholarship.\"
These are not new sentiments. Pleas that universities should \"concentrate on what matters \u2013 helping the majority of students earn credentials for sustainable living and employment, rather than ensuring that your institution matches criteria established by different rankings\" appeared in a 2017 argument that most universities should quit the rankings game.
Rhodes University has taken a principled stand not to participate in university ranking systems, citing their 'neocolonial nature' and their 'flawed methodologies', joining Harvard and Yale Law Schools.
Rhodes is not alone in rejecting university rankings. Utrecht University made the deliberate decision not to submit data to the Times Higher Education World University Ranking in 2024. Their stated reason was \"rankings put too much emphasis on comparison and mutual competition, while we want to focus on collaboration and Open Science\". Cheers to that.
I admit to some incredulity that the academic community, whose entire raison d'etre (in theory) is to question, test, and provide evidence to support claims, seem to have not only swallowed the fairy dust of rankings but actively changed strategy and activities to serve them. This is particularly acute writing from Australia, where the Chancellor of the University of Adelaide noted the decision to merge two universities in South Australia was because the merger \"will allow us to \u2026 achieve recognition among the world's top 100 universities on an ongoing basis\".
Perhaps the fundamental problem with university rankings (apart from the above and that their methods are not transparent, change over time and would never pass an ethics committee), is best put by the argument that there simply is no meaningful relationship between a ranking, on the one hand, and what a university is and does in comparison to others, on the other.
Originally written 29 July 2026.
Something I am working on with my institution (and in Australia) is discussion around the uneasy nexus between AI and Open. Uneasy indeed, I would argue it is possible to consider AI a parasite on Open. Those are harsh words, perhaps better expressed by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) in a report as the \"Uneasy interdependence of AI and Open Science\". The report that states \"open resources are the raw materials for training AI models and for their application\". The report identifies three areas of particular concern about this \u2013 lack of attribution, misinformation and aggressive bots.
This last issue relates to the need to provide large amounts of information to Large Language Models on which to train. Unless the organisation developing a tool can pay for access to paywalled material, the obvious choice of training material is open resources. This has serious implications for any infrastructure that is hosting open information.
A report on Sustaining the Commons in the AI Economy noted \"AI labs bring insatiable demand for training data...bots [are] overwhelming servers and inflating costs...collections stewards have deployed [d]efensive access restrictions [that] risk undermining the openness they were designed to protect\", prompting an infrastructure manager to note that 'the strain on infrastructure that provides the training data is considerable \u2026 which is not reimbursed by the bot owners creating the load'.
The strain on infrastructure that provides the training data is considerable and there is insufficient reciprocity. The extra cost to open infrastructure of managing bot attacks and other overwhelming use is unsustainable, particularly considering that infrastructure is often community funded. This is creating frustration for open database managers: \"Our database capacity is just being ruined every time they initiate a fresh scrape and our tech team has to scramble, taking radical measures, to keep the platform up.\" COAR have released a resource for repository managers on Dealing with Bots which addresses the aligned problems of overwhelming traffic from badly behaved bots alongside countermeasures adversely affecting or impeding welcome traffic.
It is not just fending off bots that are trying to access the material in repositories, there is also a problem with the supply of material to them. Preprint servers are increasing their moderation in response to AI generated content and junk science which makes it more difficult for genuine research to be published and \"fundamentally goes against the spirit of open science and the commitment to advancing inclusive, rapid knowledge sharing that is at the heart of preprints' value for both science and society\".
AI activity is also causing individuals and organisations to reconsider making work open. Because bots are routinely mining open access databases and, in some cases, analysing and combining data sets to create new results and papers there is concern in the academic community about the potential extraction of sensitive information such as patient information. Some open databases such as OpenAlex and Europe PMC are working on mediated access to their data sets.
In the UK, in response to computer hacking AI models like Mythos, the National Health Service has made the decision to make all of its source code repositories private by default \"given rapid advancements in AI models capable of large-scale code ingestion, inference and reasoning\". This is an override of NHS rule that all software that has been created with public money should be publicly available.
This is affecting non-academic and research publication as well. The Internet Archive has been in operating for 30 years. Because the material it captures is made openly available and therefore can be scraped, commercial organisations like news publishers (for example The Guardian, the New York Times and others) are blocking the archive's access to their pages. The situation is so problematic that this is causing calls that AI's biggest casualty could be history itself. Being blocked from gathering information is not the only threat to the Wayback Machine. Players in the AI space are buying up hard drives, causing a shortage in the types of large hard drives that the Internet Archive needs to host the Wayback Machine. Apparently these drives are either out of stock or considerably more expensive.
It is not just newspaper publishers who are closing ranks. AI also opens up new markets for publishers, to on sell subscription material to the companies. Over the past few years there has been a series of publishers removing abstracts from open bibliodatabases such as OpenAlex. Springer Nature 's abstracts were removed in November 2022. By November 2024 Elsevier were also removing abstracts. This has resulted in a sudden collapse from approximately 80% abstract coverage to about 20-35% for two of the largest publishers. This will have a significant impact on LLM assisted search. To give an indication of how deeply this will hit, an Elsevier study released in November last year that considered the 'Researcher of the Future' said that researchers currently use AI tools to find and summarise the latest research (61%). Elsevier is almost working against itself by removing its own abstracts from search LLMs that are relying on open abstracts.
Then on the other hand - the fact that AI is supercharging the production of paper mill papers, and overwhelming the publishing infrastructure means that research integrity needs open more than ever - the links between open research practice and research integrity are strong.
So overall we have a situation where a combination of AI use and the AI companies themselves is causing multiple problems for open and not providing many (if any) solutions. Open needs to be mainstreamed and in doing so we need to fund it properly. Imagine if we redirected the millions we spend on commercial organisations back into the open ecosystem\u2026..
Originally written 30 July 2026.
The course has taken a very wide perspective in considering the scholarly publishing ecosystem and the challenges it is facing, incorporating the incentives of the reward system, and the impact of artificial intelligence. A recent question posed on the Scholarly Kitchen about the use of AI in authoring papers was 'is it right to use AI to write papers when publishing papers are used as a barometer of researcher competency, tenure and promotion?' I would argue this is the wrong question. The more pertinent question is \"Is it right that publishing papers is used as the primary assessment tool of researchers?\".
It is time to rethink this whole endeavour.
Considering all of the issues covered by the course, it seems to be a bleak time for the scientific enterprise. And the focus has deliberately steered away from current geopolitical activity which is a further serious and immediate threat. As bad as things appear, it can be easy to forget that this is not the first time that science has been under serious threat.
Robert Merton was a foundational figure in modern sociology, who pioneered the sociology of science, functional analysis, and criminology. He introduced many influential concepts including, the self\u2011fulfilling prophecy and the Matthew Effect. In 1942 he wrote an essay on \"The Normative Structure of Science\". My copy of this work is published in a 1973 book The Sociology of Science edited by Norman W Storer.
In the essay Merton notes (my emphasis):
\"Incipient and actual attacks upon the integrity of science have led scientists to recognize their dependence on particular types of social structure. Manifestos and pronouncements by associations of scientists are devoted to the relations of science and society. An institution under attack must re-examine its foundations, restate its objectives, seek out its rationale. Crisis invites self-appraisal. [my emphasis]
These are words that resonate strongly today. Forget 'incipient', there are clear actual attacks on science happening now.
In the essay Merton identifies four norms of science: Universalism, Communalism, Disinterestedness and Organized Scepticism. Between them they represent the broadly understood approach to science (and by science I mean all research) across the globe.
It is very clear these norms are under significant strain, due to a combination of the reward system both incentivising questionable research practices and generating new markets for paper mills and the like, and political interference in research funding and research focus.
Considering Universalism - \"scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants\" \u2013 it would be hard to argue the current environment in the US with a high level of political interference in research is not running counter to this. A couple of examples include CDC staff being prohibited from co-authoring papers with World Health Organisation personnel and significant numbers of grants being terminated on ideological grounds.
The norm of Disinterestedness - that \"scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of individuals within them\" is not served by the gamification of publication. Publication patterns of researchers and institutions are transformed by the publication types that are included in their performance evaluation.
The threat to ban or restrict researchers' ability to publish in particular journals and insisting they publish in an 'in-house' journal challenges the norm of Communalism - that \"all scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm\"
But the norm that has been under the greatest pressure for some time now is that of Organized Scepticism \u2013 that \"scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct\". This is the process we now know as peer review, which began in its current form in the mid 1970s.
Merton wrote his piece towards the end of World War Two. From the end of the war until the mid-1970s, the commercial model of academic publishing fitted well with the needs of an expanding international and specialised academic research base. Since then, the industry has simply continued to expand.
The increase of submissions to journals has exploded since the release of ChatGPT, with one journal experiencing a rise of 42% since late 2022. An analysis showed this was \"almost entirely due to manuscripts with substantial AI-generated text \u2026By early 2026, the majority of manuscripts submitted to Organization Science contain detectable AI-generated writing. The fastest growing category is \u2026 manuscripts where 70% or more of the text appears to be AI generated.\"
The sheer volume of articles being submitted for publication is causing major disruptions to the editorial process. A study from eight years of activity in the publication management tool ScholarOne showed that while the global reviewer pool grew 54% between 2018 and 2025, the rate at which the reviewers accept invitations has fallen. According to the study: \"It now takes editors an average of 4.5 invitations to secure a review, \u2026[and] per 100 invitations sent, editors wait a combined 407 days for reviewers who ultimately say no or say nothing at all.\"
Commentary abounds about the pressure peer review is currently under, such as this depressing screen grab of the editorial processes for an article before finally being withdrawn after multiple months and eight rounds of contacting reviewers without a single review being undertaken. One editor has called for \"scientists, universities, publishers, and funders \u2026 to treat peer review as the essential work that it is, not as an optional favour\".
This increase in submissions appears to be accompanied by a drop in assessment. Different publishers are exponentially increasing the number of articles they are publishing but approaching the issue in different ways. Large publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature have increased the number of journals they publish, and distributed articles across them. Newer publishers such as MDPI and Frontiers have simply increased the number of articles published in any given journal and for these publishers \"articles, regardless of initial quality or field of research, and despite the expectation of heterogeneity, are all accepted in an increasingly similar time frame\". Peer review appears to be a victim of these approaches.
The system is dysfunctional in other ways, with one author humorously noting that given they could not understand the title of the manuscript they had been sent to review that \"an AI powered toaster oven would be an improvement over me\".
So what is the future of peer review? This is a live topic, itself generating more articles that themselves require peer review (!) Suggestions abound. In some cases, publishers are embracing AI in the peer review process. Springer Nature is claiming in a press release that this results in \"less friction and increased author satisfaction\". The result, claim Springer Nature, is that \"authors can spend more time doing research and editors and reviewers can make better and faster decisions\".
At least one editor of Neuroscience journal is not happy with these developments, resigning over concerns about automation stating \"these are \u2026 intentional features, designed to essentially remove the human editors as much as possible\".
Many proposals are turning to introducing a series of quality control measures across the research process. One commentator, who argues \"the scientific publishing model is facing a systemic crisis that should be addressed\" proposes a 'continuum of consensus' as a quality control system. There appear to be more options in the market considering the question of 'trust markers'. In May this year a group of scholarly societies in the biological and biomedical sciences announced the launch of the Trust Seal framework initiative \"to provide greater confidence in publications that have adopted community-led best practices for trustworthy science\". The TrustMarc Initiative is an open effort to make trust in content visible, verifiable, and portable and is currently looking for development partners such as research organisations to help the development of the initiative.
The possibly natural end point of this would be a journal that accepts AI generated articles, peer reviews them using AI and all the editorial decisions are made by AI tools. Oh wait, it exists \u2013 it is called the Journal of AI by AI (JAAI).
If we collectively don't really start addressing the whole scientific ecosystem, we may well all drown in a sea of AI slop.
PS: For more insight into the question of Merton's Norms, you may wish to read: Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.
This is the final reading in the series for the course \u2013 thank you for staying to the end!
Every year, since 2017 the FORCE11 Scholarly Communication Institute runs a series of courses for the scholarly communication community. This started in person, went online during COVID and after a one year gathering at UCLA in 2024 is online once more.
Where do we go from here?
On May 17, 2026, Sholto David identified one fabricated image presented as validation data in Thermo Fisher's antibody catalog. By May 28, we had identified more than 100 fabricated images, which expanded to more than 450 images in Thermo Fisher's catalog and one in Abcam's catalog by June 3 (see my previous blog post). We set up a Zenodo repository to collect all these instances of apparent manipulation of antibody validation data and a form for others to report suspicious images in vendor's antibody validation data that they had found themselves.
\n\n\n\nUnderstandably, this revelation prompted considerable outrage among biomedical scientists, as reported by Nature, Chemistry World, The Scientist, GenomeWeb and others. Phillip Broadwith, Business editor for Chemistry World, summarizes: \"The discovery of extensive manipulation in Western blot images used by laboratory supply giant Thermo Fisher Scientific as verification data for antibody reagents has led to a serious breakdown of trust between the company and its customers.\"
\n\n\n\nThis update is to say that this newfound distrust should probably extend to a good fraction of the research antibody industry at large. Our repository now contains 18,943 images presented as validation data for 17,495 unique antibody products sold by 15 different vendors1. In order of discovery, these vendors are:
\n\n\n\nBelow, I summarize the findings for each company and provide a short postscript detailing my own opinion about what should happen from here. Note that while I have tried to document as many instances of apparent manipulation as possible, the figures shown here do not represent a complete audit of each company's catalog. Moreover, many images I've reviewed look as though they may have been manipulated, but are too low-resolution for me to offer a confident opinion. I've elected not to include these images in the repository. For all of these images, the best way to know if falsification has occurred is to inspect the original, high-resolution images, which may or may not be available, even to the vendors themselves.
\n\n\n\nFor these reasons, a vendor having a larger or smaller number of manipulated images documented here should not be interpreted as an indication that it has a larger or smaller manipulation problem than the other companies listed here. All of these companies have some level of manipulated images in their catalogs and they should each comprehensively and transparently audit the images in their respective catalogs. Finally, if a vendor is not present here, it is not an indication that their catalog is free of manipulation.
\n\n\n\nHundreds of these problematic images were first identified by others, including Sholto David, Elisabeth Bik, Javeria Nishtar, Maxwell Marley, Marvin Bader, HKADolan, Bryan Heit and several community members that prefer to remain anonymous. Many other community members submitted images that they found suspicious, but were too low-resolution for me to make a confident determination and include them in the repository. I want to thank all these people for taking the time to document and report their findings. I encourage readers to report any suspicious validation data they notice in vendor catalogs here.
\n\n\n\nIt is clear that many of these vendors are using the same images as one another for their own versions of the same product. For instance, this HAS1 antibody from Thermo Fisher uses the same Western blot image as similar products from Millipore Sigma, Novus (R&D Systems) and Boster Bio. I only noticed this because the image used for the HAS1 antibody has the exact same pattern of background noise as a different Western blot image used for a different antibody also sold by Thermo Fisher, implying that at least one of these images is fabricated.
\n\n\n\nAt least six companies (Thermo Fisher, Abcam, LSBio, Antibodies.com, G-Biosciences and GeneTex) present a Western blot using the exact same \"background pattern A\" as thousands of other antibody products. I described background pattern A in my previous blog post.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/background_pattern_a.gif\")
If they aren't using the exact same images as one another, different companies will often use images that are so stylistically similar that it is clear that they originated from the same art studio laboratory.
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-08-10-084634.png?w=1024\")
Identical images across multiple vendors probably reflect the industry practicing private labeling, where one manufacturer produces a product that they then sell to other companies to market and sell under their own branding. It appears that the original manufacturer of these antibodies also passed along their validation data to the final vendor, who then placed them on their website.
\n\n\n\nThermo Fisher Scientific, headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, is probably the world's largest supplier of laboratory equipment and reagents and was the first company that was noted to have presented fabricated images as validation data. In response to the public outrage, Thermo Fisher released a baffling 15-point FAQ wherein they promise an investigation, but repeatedly state that \"antibody images may have been optimized for presentation and clarity on the website\". Shortly after, they revised their FAQ to just seven points. To the carefully-worded question \"Did Thermo Fisher manipulate or fabricate antibody data?\", they emphatically respond:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNo. The Company fully stands by the data and underlying science. We are confident in the quality of the products within our antibody catalog and our performance guarantee is valid for products purchased directly from Thermo Fisher Scientific or any of our authorized distributors. For further information, please refer to the Invitrogen\u2122 antibody performance guarantee.
\n
Note that this answer only claims that Thermo Fisher itself did not manipulate or fabricate antibody data, which leaves the company room to offer a clean mea culpa if their review finds that the images were manipulated by a third party. Regardless of which party is responsible for the manipulation, Thermo Fisher used these images to market their products to scientists hungry for antibodies that actually perform as advertised.
\n\n\n\nAround the same time that their FAQ was revised, Thermo Fisher and added a disclaimer to all antibody product pages in small gray type:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPlease note: We are reviewing Western blot images included in the antibody testing data in our catalog, including those provided by third parties. Unless expressly labeled or annotated as \"raw-unedited\", Western blot images included in the antibody testing data in our catalog may have been edited, optimized or otherwise adjusted for presentation.
\n
Thus far, I have not seen any images in Thermo Fisher's catalog that are labeled as \"raw-unedited\". Note that Thermo Fisher has not committed to making the findings of their investigation public.
\n\n\n\nMore than a thousand newly-documented images from Thermo Fisher's catalog contain artefacts of \"painting\", where someone presumably has brushed over some undesirable image features in Photoshop or a similar program (some highlights below).
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ma5-32826-alpha-ii-spectrin-wb-1_annotated.png?w=1024\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ma5-15768-xbp1-icc-1-20210316093024_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ma5-27235-pcmt1-wb-2-20171219153335_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ma5-31629-apc2-icc-if-1-20190118084319_annotated.png?w=1008\")
Dozens of other images feature duplicated regions of background noise.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ma5-35510-crmp2-wb-1-20220818_115929_annotated1.png?w=1024\")
Thousands of other images feature the same background patterns with the bands repositioned to correspond to the expected molecular weight, as in the previously-documented \"background pattern A\" and \"background pattern B\".
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/260810_background_pattern_c.gif?w=90\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/260810_background_pattern_d.gif?w=116\")
If 450 images was not enough to convince Thermo Fisher that this is not data they should \"fully stand behind\", maybe 5,000 images will be.
\n\n\n\nAnother way to stoke confidence in buyers that an antibody works as advertised is to show them that other scientists have successfully used it. To that end, most antibody vendors show \"citations\" and \"references\" on product pages, listing published articles wherein the authors state that they used the antibody in their experiments. These product citations are compiled by services like CiteAb, the Antibody Registry and BenchSci. Thermo Fisher's product pages collect citations to the product and provide a short quotation from each describing how the reagent was used.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-08-10-at-14-54-30-xbp1-monoclonal-antibody-9b7e5-invitrogen-ma5-15768.png?w=824\")
I was alerted to a problem with these citations by a post by Sander Kersten, who complained that:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Thermo Fisher] is quoting a sentence from our manuscript, written 25 years ago, indicating that we used their antibody. However, we didn’t, and the quote is a total fabrication.
\n
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/1781833186182.jpg?w=1024\")
The product page makes it appear as if it is quoting directly from Kersten et al. (2000): \"PA1-1053 was used in western blot to investigate the function of PPAR alpha and characterize FIAF during fasting\". The actual relevant quotation from Kersten et al. is \"[t]he polyclonal antibody used was directed against the epitope CQGPKGKDAPFKDSE in the N-terminal region of FIAF. The peptide affinity-purified antibody was generated in rabbit and ordered via Eurogentec’s customized antibody production service.\" In other words, Kersten et al. never claim to use the Thermo Fisher product in question. The antibody they used binds the same epitope (amino acid sequence) as PA1-1053 claims, but the authors explicitly state that it came from a different manufacturer.
\n\n\n\nIn fact, every single apparent quotation from a product reference on Thermo Fisher’s site is not actually from the reference manuscript. For instance, the same product page that misquoted Kersten et al. also makes it appear as if it is quoting directly from Choudhuri et al. (2021): \"PA1-1053 was used in Western Blotting to gain insight into the mechanisms that result in such changes by Tempol in female C3H mice\". The actual relevant quotation from Choudhuri et al. reads \"[f]ollowing transfer to nitrocellulose, samples were probed with primary antibodies ALDH1A1 (ab52492) from Abcam (Waltham, MA), ANGPTL4/FIAF (PA1-1053) from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA) followed by rabbit secondary antibody from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Dallas, TX), and were visualized by chemiluminescence (PerkinElmer; Billerica, MA)\".
\n\n\n\nI believe these summaries are AI-generated, but they are clearly presented (in quotation marks, no less) as if they are direct quotations from the manuscript. While product pages on Thermo Fisher are littered with buttons prompting users to \"Ask AI about this product\", users are given no indication that these quotations are AI-generated nor that they are not actually quotations. Every Reference section does have an \"AI-generated summary\" at the top, however, this part is not presented in quotation marks and is clearly disclaimed as being AI-generated, unlike the references themselves.
\n\n\n\nMoreover, many of these summaries are inaccurate, such as the reference to Kersten et al.! I ran spot-checks of 15 references from another antibody (MA5-14520, Ki-67 Recombinant Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody clone SP6) and found 4 listed references (1, 2, 3, 4) that state that they used a rabbit antibody from Thermo Fisher (or one of the brands acquired by Thermo Fisher) but don’t actually specify that it was MA5-14520. Thermo Fisher currently sells 54 antibodies targeting Ki-67 with rabbits as the host organism.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nThermo Fisher’s response to this latest update is not substantively different from their previous responses. From Dan Garisto’s reporting for Nature:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNone of the companies contacted by Nature responded to questions about shared backgrounds, although Thermo Fisher said in its statement that western blot images in its catalogue had been generated over many years, including by third parties, and that it is updating or replacing images where appropriate.
\n
From Mitch Leslie’s reporting for Science:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA spokesperson for Thermo Fisher says: \"Our ongoing review has found no evidence of impact to antibody performance or the underlying scientific data.\"
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHowever, the company did not address the concern about the literature reference and did not say whether Thermo Fisher has identified any wrongdoings yet, either internally or by third parties, through its review process.
\n
Thermo Fisher has still not committed to publicly sharing the results of their review.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 14 September 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nThermo Fisher has now removed the quotation marks from each of the citation summaries on each product page.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-09-14-at-13-12-31-p53-monoclonal-antibody-do-7-invitrogen-ma5-12557.png?w=900\")
Abcam is based in Cambridge, UK and was acquired by the Danaher Corporation, headquartered in Washington, DC, in 2023. We previously found just one instance of image manipulation in Abcam's catalog (an appearance by \"background pattern A\"). After making this public, Abcam issued a short statement to The Scientist and wordlessly removed the image from the antibody's product page. The product remains for sale.
\n\n\n\nThe newly-documented manipulations contain a lot of patchwork painting of background noise in Western blots, as well as several dozen appearances of background patterns C and D.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/hsp90-alpha-hsp90-beta-antibody-s08-8a1-ab317388-western-blot-img429471_annotated.png?w=945\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/adss-2-antibody-s05-8f8-ab317380-western-blot-img429441_annotated.png?w=916\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Shelby Bradford’s reporting for The Scientist:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAn Abcam spokesperson, one of the 15 vendors implicated, said that scientists at the company conduct internal validation for their in-house generated products and review any data images provided externally. They added that when concerns arise, they conduct an investigation of the image, referring to the original data where possible and removing images where this is not available. They declined to comment on an individual example but noted that a review is underway.
\n
From Mitch Leslie’s reporting for Science:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAbcam's spokesperson says the company is evaluating the recently identified cases. Moreover, the spokesperson adds, \"Every validation image, whether generated by Abcam or provided by a partner, is reviewed by Abcam scientists before publication.\"
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn an email, an Abcam spokesperson said the “removal or review of a catalog image is not, by itself, a conclusion about product performance.”
\n
Novus Biologicals is a brand owned by R&D Systems, a brand of Bio-Techne, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Bio-Techne announced in June that they would be acquired by Merck KGaA, headquartered in Darmstadt, Germany (not to be confused with the American company Merck & Co., Inc.). The images flagged in our repository mostly feature background pattern C and background pattern D.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/260810_pattern_d_rnd_systems.gif?w=186\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Benjamin Plackett’s reporting for C&EN:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nC&EN contacted each of the 15 companies for comment. Six shared responses before the publication deadline: Abcam, Bioss, GeneTex, MilliporeSigma, Novus Biologicals and R&D Systems, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. All of them said they value accuracy and promised to review all of their products that were highlighted in the report.
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBio-Techne, which owns R&D Systems and will soon be part of Merck KGaA, meanwhile, did not comment on any third-party manufacturing of its products.
\n\n\n\nAll of these companies said they are reviewing their antibody catalogs, including the validation images, in light of the data manipulation allegations.
\n
ProteoGenix is headquartered in Schiltigheim, France. An anonymous community member noticed that several images in ProteoGenix's catalog use the exact same background pattern (which I've called \"background pattern E\"). According to this person, they alerted ProteoGenix to the first handful of problematic images that they noticed. ProteoGenix apparently answered this courtesy by silently removing the offending images from the catalog (note that since the catalog pages were not previously archived, I cannot independently verify if ProteoGenix did indeed remove these images after the community report). This person went on to document 200 additional occurrences of the background pattern in ProteoGenix's catalog, after which I found more than 150 more.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/260810_background_pattern_e_proteogenix.gif?w=446\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nProteoGenix did not respond to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story. However, the offending images appear to have now been removed for all 362 of these products. As far as I can tell, they all remain for sale.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-08-26-at-13-44-12-anti-guca1a-polyclonal-antibody-proteogenix.png?w=934\")
Origene is headquartered in Rockville, Maryland. Most of their newly-documented image manipulations contain evidence of background painting.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ta507245-500-w_annotated.png?w=999\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ta800094-500-w_annotated.png?w=999\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ta506908-1-f_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ta180009_ta180091_ta501384_nbp2-78136.png?w=1024\")
Even one of the images shown as \"Example Data\" for \"Specificity Validation\" on Origene's \"Antibodies\" landing page appears to have been manipulated.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/260821_example_origene.png?w=1024\")
(As it turns out, some of the images I had previously annotated as belonging to Thermo Fisher products actually belonged to Origene products and only appeared on Thermo Fisher's website as part of a partnership with Origene to also include their catalog in Thermo Fisher's search interface. This error has been corrected in the updated version of the repository.)
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 8 September 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nAs reported by Dan Garisto, on August 31 Origene made a press release addressing the situation. In it, Origene states that
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHistorically, limited image processing, including adjustments to brightness and contrast, was permitted to improve visualization for online presentation. Cosmetic removal of isolated background artifacts was also permitted under previous practices, provided that such processing did not alter experimental bands, signals, controls, or the scientific interpretation of the experiment…
\n\n\n\n…The recent report has prompted us to reassess these historical practices against evolving expectations for scientific image integrity and transparency.
\n\n\n\n…OriGene has therefore revised its Western blot image-processing procedures. Cosmetic removal of background artifacts is no longer permitted. Image adjustments will be limited to those consistent with current scientific data-integrity standards, with the objective of preserving an accurate representation of the original experimental data.
\n
They also provide original images for four of the earliest identified problematic images (initially found in Thermo Fisher’s catalog by Elisabeth Bik). These images suggest that the “painting” alterations made were solely cosmetic. However, I will note that the original images provided are still not raw data; they are screenshots of the raw data in a spreadsheet software.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-09-08-085023.png?w=1024\")
New versions of each of these images without painting have been added to Origene’s catalog. The painted versions remain on Thermo Fisher’s catalog pages for these Origene products.
\n\n\n\nMillipore Sigma is a subsidiary of Merck KGaA, headquartered in Darmstadt, Germany. Most of these image manipulations involve reuse of background patterns C and D.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/sab5300129_annotated.png?w=1024\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Shelby Bradford’s reporting for The Scientist:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA spokesperson from MilliporeSigma said that their catalogue includes internally developed and externally sourced antibodies and that they are currently conducting a review of their antibody imagery to ensure that these meet their accuracy and reliability standards.
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn their response to GenomeWeb, Millipore Sigma, a subsidiary of Merck KgaA; GeneTex, an antibody manufacturer based in Irvine, California; and Abcam all noted that their antibody portfolios include externally sourced products.
\n
LSBio is a subsidiary of Vector Laboratories, based in Newark, California. Their catalog features more than 1,000 repetitions each of background pattern A and background pattern B and hundreds of instances of apparent painting in Western blot and immunofluorescence images.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/542123_4370741_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/536817_4537230_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/568883_4741851_annotated.png?w=1008\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Dan Garisto’s reporting for Nature:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA spokesperson for LSBio said in a statement that the entries \"amount to less than 0.04% of the total offering on our platform\", but that the firm takes the image concerns seriously and will perform an investigation with its partners.
\n
I am not sure where LSBio got this figure. Their “Antibodies” product page presently lists 312,144 products.
\n\n\n\nBioss is headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts. Hundreds of images in its catalog feature apparent painting or stitching-together of background noise.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/16065_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/22441_annotated.png?w=846\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/60952_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/49691_annotated.png?w=869\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
Unlike other companies listed here, Bioss’ initial response seem to actual reflect some conscientiousness. From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\nOf the companies that responded to GenomeWeb, Woburn, Massachusetts-based Bioss was the only one that provided a more detailed action plan. The firm said it is preserving and reviewing associated records of manipulated images, including available original source files, laboratory documentation, and quality control logs.
\n\n\n\nAccording to a spokesperson, Bioss develops and manufactures all antibodies sold under its brand, but if any relevant testing or image preparation was performed externally, it will identify this in its review. “Regardless of where an experiment may have been performed, Bioss accepts responsibility for validation material published under its name,” the spokesperson said.
\n\n\n\nThe spokesperson also said the company’s antibody validation images “may be prepared for web presentation through cropping, resizing, and documented whole image brightness or contrast adjustments that do not change the scientific meaning of the data.” However, “selective painting, deletion, cloning, enhancement of individual bands or regions, or undisclosed stitching is not acceptable,” he noted.
\n\n\n\nAfter review, if an image cannot be cleared, Bioss will correct, label, or remove it, the spokesperson said. “If the underlying validation for a product claim cannot be confirmed, Bioss will pause that claim and determine whether revalidation or a product hold is appropriate. If a relevant product claim is materially affected, customers will receive appropriate support and remedies,” he noted.
\n
From Benjamin Plackett’s reporting for C&EN:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"If the review establishes that a relevant product claim cannot be substantiated or requires material correction, Bioss will identify affected customers and provide appropriate support and remedies, which may include replacement or refund,\" Bioss says in its statement to C&EN, noting that it had not yet had a chance to assess Richardson's report. \"Bioss intends to disclose material findings and product level corrections after receiving and reviewing the underlying materials.\"
\n
Boster Bio is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. Many images in Boster's catalog feature signs of apparent painting.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/m00024-anti-akt1-mouse-monoclonal-antibody-clone-id_002_g-wf_annotated.png?w=999\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/m07073-1-anti-ikb-epsilon-nfkbie-mouse-monoclonal-antib_v4fk_annotated.png?w=921\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn an email, a spokesperson for Pleasanton, California-based Boster Bio said the company does use original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for some of its antibodies, which “tend to be of lesser quality” than those produced in-house. The spokesperson said the company tests its self-produced antibodes with tissues and cell lines and does not manipulate internal validation data before posting on the website.
\n
I’ll let this comment speak for itself, other than to say that there is no indication on Boster’s catalog that any of the affected products are produced by a third party, nor that consumers should expect them to be “of lesser quality”.
\n\n\n\nG-Biosciences is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. A stunning volume of images presented as validation data in G-Biosciences' catalog feature either background pattern A (4,278 images) or background pattern B (2,110 images).
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/260817_gbiosciences_pattern_b.gif?w=500\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nG-Biosciences has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nGeneTex is headquartered in Irvine, California. Problematic images in GeneTex's catalog include repetitions of background patterns A and B and at least one instance of copy-pasted background noise.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/gtx02579_20201026_wb_w_23053122_905_annotated1.png?w=1012\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn their response to GenomeWeb, Millipore Sigma, a subsidiary of Merck KgaA; GeneTex, an antibody manufacturer based in Irvine, California; and Abcam all noted that their antibody portfolios include externally sourced products.
\n
HUABIO is headquartered in Hangzhou, China. HUABIO's catalog features many instances of apparent painting and repetitive patterns in background noise.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/r1512-15_1_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ha500395_1_annotated.png?w=1008\")
Some of the repetitive regions of background noise also inexplicably contain numerals. I do not have a satisfactory explanation for what happened here.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/er2001-41_1_annotated-edited.png\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nHUABIO has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nAntibodies.com is headquartered in Cambridge, UK. At least 242 validation images in their catalog feature background pattern A. On August 21, I was alerted that several of these products had been discontinued from the Antibodies.com online catalog since I downloaded these images on August 12 and can no longer be found by search.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-08-21-at-17-21-41-anti-creb-phospho-ser111-antibody-a51205-antibodies.com_.png?w=879\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nAntibodies.com did not provide a comment to any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story. However, as Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb shows, they did apparently open their emails:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAfter GenomeWeb reached out to Antibodies.com with three product listings containing examples of apparent image manipulation, the firm deleted these antibodies from its website without offering an explanation. It also did not respond to a request for comment.
\n
Shortly after publishing this story, all 242 affected products were removed from the Antibodies.com catalog.
\n\n\n\nAbnova is headquartered in Taipei, Taiwan. Many validation images in their catalog feature background pattern C or D, signs of apparent painting or compositing, or other common background patterns (\"background pattern G\" and \"background pattern H\") that I have not observed in other vendors' catalogs.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-08-17-035358.png?w=1024\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/screenshot-2026-08-17-035634.png?w=1024\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/rab01449-fxr1-wb-1-20250625_084428_annotated.png?w=978\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nAbnova has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nSanta Cruz Biotechnology is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. In 2016, the company paid a historically high 3.5 million USD fine to the United States Department of Agriculture to settle numerous allegations of violating the Animal Welfare Act in its treatment of animals used to produce antibodies. Problematic images in Santa Cruz's catalog feature background painting and apparent cloning of background noise.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/14-3-3-eta-antibody-6a12-western-blotting_36_85_z_368566_annotated.png?w=1008\")
![\"\"](\"https://reeserichardson.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/galpha-13-antibody-6f6-b5-western-blotting_36_80_z_368009_annotated.png?w=1008\")
[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nSanta Cruz Biotechnology has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nIt cannot be overstated how much biomedical research rides on antibodies performing as intended and how much time researchers lose to working with antibodies that do not perform. Increased recognition of the importance of antibody validation has led to vendors near-universally embedding validation data in their catalogs. However, to many vendors, selling validated antibodies apparently matters less than the semblance of selling validated antibodies.
\n\n\n\nIf an antibody fails internal validation testing by its manufacturer, a responsible vendor would elect not to sell it. However, a large fraction of research antibodies currently for sale do not perform as advertised, as detailed by Ayoubi et al. (2024). Thus, either manufacturers and vendors are willfully ignoring the results of their validation testing or are not performing validation testing in the first place. When a vendor sells an antibody with validation data that has been painted over or otherwise altered, it suggests the former possibility. The many wholly-fabricated Western blots using a common background pattern suggest the latter. Many companies are clearly attaching their quality guarantees to private-label products that they had no part in testing, if testing occurred at all.
\n\n\n\nSkirting validation makes perfect business sense; running validation tests is expensive and it is more profitable to sell a large catalog of untested antibodies than a small catalog of properly-validated products. Ayoubi et al. address this:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCommercial antibody suppliers support a large and diverse catalogue of products, with most antibody products generating <$5000 in total sales, far less than the costs of [knockout]-based validation, estimated at $25,000. While leading companies are increasingly assessing antibody performance, it is exceedingly difficult, and cost restrained, to properly characterize all their products. Even when available, high-performing antibodies may remain hidden within the millions of reagents of unknown quality.
\n
An inconvenient result in validation testing could also mean that the cost of developing an antibody goes unrecouped. I wonder, then, why we feel comfortable outsourcing the critical task of antibody production and distribution to entities whose profit motive encourages them to market products that have not been tested.
\n\n\n\nI do think that readers should direct their ire towards the companies that have been marketing antibodies with faked data. A simple way to do this is for scientists to request the original, unedited validation data images for antibodies they have purchased (Thermo Fisher has already promised that such images will be provided to customers \"where available\"). However, even the most protracted opprobrium will bounce off of large companies like Thermo Fisher or Merck KGaA. Regulation of how research antibodies are produced and marketed will induce longer-term change (and I believe regulation is a minimum necessary step), but there still remains a fundamental mismatch between the needs of the biomedical research community and the interests of the for-profit enterprises producing their crucial reagents. In the long term, I think that the biomedical research community would be better served by the creation of publicly-funded antibody vendors whose interest is in producing antibodies that work, not in producing antibodies that sell.
\n\n\n\nIn the previous post[1] we described the orbital interactions involved in stabilising the formation of a Cp2TiS5 complex (figure 1 below, X=S) rather than a Cp2TiS4 complex when Cp2TiCl2 is treated with a mixture of polysulfide dianions – and how these interactions can be “tuned” by variation in the ring atoms.
\n\n![\"\"](\"https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Cp2TiS5.svg\")
\nFigure 1. Bis-cyclopentadienyl titanium sulfides.
We identified[1] one compound in which one of the Cp ligands itself is replaced by a hindered phenyoxy group (PUJFUV[2]) thus reducing the number of electrons the Cp ligand contributes to the valence shell of the Ti by four down to only two. Here the effect that this replacement has on the original orbital interactions is explored.
\nA MN15L/Def2-TZVPP calculation[3] shows the geometry of PUJFUV (Figure 2) to have a calculated S-Ti bond length of 2.395 Å. This compares to 2.466Å for Cp2TiS5 itself and this value is also significantly shorter than any of any of the other analogues described in the previous post (the shortest there being 1.453Å)[1]
\n![\"\"](\"https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/PUJFUV.jpg\")
\nFigure 2. The structure of PUJFUV, a cyclopentadienyl-2,6-di-isopropropoxy titanium pentasulfide.
The interaction previously discussed[1] involves overlap between a p-orbital like lone pair donor on a sufur attached to the Ti with an (almost) empty metal d-orbital (actually a Tid-Sp-π antibonding orbital) as acceptor. PUJFUV has four bonding electrons less than Cp2TiS5 and hence formally now has three empty Ti d-orbitals rather than just one (although some of these electrons may become back-donated from O to Ti, see below).
\nA pair of Sp-Tid interactions are now found,[4] one from each sulfur to a different Ti d-orbital (Figures 2,3) with NBO E(2) interaction energies of 30.92 and 22.06 kcal/mol (Figures 3 and 4 respectively). The first of these is significantly larger than the largest value previously found (23.59) by some margin[1] whilst the second is about the same. For Cp2TiS5 itself, only one such interaction was calculated – because there was only one unoccupied Ti d-orbital.
\n![\"\"](\"https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/134-138.jpg\")
\nFigure 3. Sp-Tidz2 interaction 1, E(2) = 30.92.[4]
![\"\"](\"https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/135-139.jpg\")
\nFigure 4. Sp-Tid interaction 2, E(2) = 22.06.[4]
There are also three interactions between one of two lone pairs on the oxygen of the phenoxy group and a titanium d-orbital (Figures 5-7), two from a oxygen p-type lone pair (Figures 5 and 6) and one from an s-type oxygen lone pair (Figure 7). The three interactions conspire to reduce the length of the Ti-O bond to a short value, as noted previously, [1] although this tendency towards a Ti≡O triple bond is only formal.
\n![\"\"](\"https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/128-138.jpg\")
\nFigure 5. Op-Tid interaction 1, E(2) = 17.64.[4]
![\"\"](\"https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/126-139.jpg\")
\nFigure 6. Op-Tid interaction 2, E(2) = 31.53.[4]
![\"\"](\"https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/59-140.jpg\")
\nFigure 7. Os-Tid interaction 3, E(2) = 55.84.[4]
The conclusion is that when a Cp ligand is replaced by an O-Ar one, formally three d-orbitals on the Ti rather than one become available for back-donation and the attached sulfur atoms on the sulfur ring can now interact more strongly with the Ti, hence shortening the Ti-S bond length and increasing the Ti-S partial double bond character. The back donation effect, noted[5] as the crucial reason why 16-electron Ti complexes favour a ring with five rather than four sulfur atoms, is also increased in strength for this 12-electron version.This is likely to be the strongest such back-donation for TiS5 systems, although the hunt is on for even stronger examples.
\nDer Ende Juli verabschiedete Regierungsentwurf des KI-Migrationsverwaltungsgesetzes (KIMVG) will eine breite Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz (KI) in Visa-, Aufenthalts- und Asylverfahren schaffen. Der Gesetzesentwurf sieht vor, personenbezogene Daten f\u00fcr die Entwicklung eigener KI-Systeme zu verarbeiten, Antr\u00e4ge automatisiert mit \u00f6ffentlich zug\u00e4nglichen Internetquellen abzugleichen und ein KI-gest\u00fctztes Verfahrensmonitoring einzuf\u00fchren. Die Bundesregierung begr\u00fcndet das Gesetz mit dem Verweis auf knappe Ressourcen und dem Ziel, Effizienz, Qualit\u00e4t und Sicherheit der Verfahren zu verbessern. Gleichzeitig weisen zivilgesellschaftliche Akteur*innen auf rechtliche L\u00fccken, zu weitreichende Befugnisse und eine Vielzahl offener Fragen hin. Dieser Blogpost analysiert die Grundelemente des KIMVG, gibt einen \u00dcberblick \u00fcber die Einsch\u00e4tzungen und Kritik der Zivilgesellschaft und diskutiert die Wichtigkeit einer breiten gesellschaftlichen Beteiligung bei der Diskussion \u00fcber die Regulierung von KI-Systemen in der Migrations- und Asylverwaltung.
\n\u00a0
\nAm 29.07.2026 beschloss das Bundeskabinett den Regierungsentwurf des sogenannten KI-Migrationsverwaltungsgesetzes (KIMVG), der zu einer Weichenstellung f\u00fcr die Zukunft der deutschen Asyl- und Migrationsverwaltung werden k\u00f6nnte. Mit \u00c4nderungen und Erg\u00e4nzungen des Asylgesetzes und des Aufenthaltsgesetzes will der Entwurf eine breite Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von KI in der Migrationsverwaltung schaffen, konkret bei Visa-, Aufenthalts- und Asylverfahren. Dies betrifft insbesondere drei Punkte: Erstens, ein \"automatisiertes Verfahrensmonitoring\", bei dem abgeschlossene Verfahren KI-gest\u00fctzt ausgewertet werden sollen, um Entscheidungsstrukturen zu identifizieren und Potenziale f\u00fcr Standardisierung und Beschleunigung zu erkennen. Zweitens \u2013 bei begr\u00fcndeten Zweifeln \u2013 ein automatisierter Abgleich von Angaben mit Quellen aus dem Internet, zum Beispiel aus sozialen Netzwerken. Drittens, eine Nutzung von personenbezogenen Daten, um beh\u00f6rdliche KI-Systeme zuk\u00fcnftig zu trainieren, zu validieren und zu testen. Das beim Bundesministerium des Inneren (BMI) angesiedelte Gesetzgebungsverfahren geht auf ein Eckpunktepapier des BMI und des Ausw\u00e4rtigen Amts (AA) von 2025 zur\u00fcck. Nach Ver\u00f6ffentlichung des ersten Referentenentwurfs des KIMVG am 25.06.2026 wurden eine Reihe von Verb\u00e4nden und zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen um Stellungnahme innerhalb einer Woche gebeten. Die Kurzfristigkeit wurde von allen stellungnehmenden Akteur*innen kritisiert. Der Deutsche Caritasverband e.V. schreibt beispielsweise, dass \"eine vertiefte fachliche und rechtliche Pr\u00fcfung des Entwurfs [angesichts der au\u00dferordentlich kurzen Frist] nicht m\u00f6glich war\". Als n\u00e4chste Schritte im Gesetzgebungsverfahren folgen Abstimmungen im Bundestag und Bundesrat \u2013 eine genaue Timeline ist jedoch zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt ungewiss.
\n\u00a0
\nBereits das Eckpunktepapier von AA und BMI von 2025 begr\u00fcndet die Notwendigkeit f\u00fcr KI und Automatisierung mit Verweis auf \"gesteigerte Effizienz\" und \"mehr Sicherheit\". Durch (Teil-)Automatisierung sollen Verfahren \"schneller und weniger ressourcenintensiv\" und Wartezeiten verk\u00fcrzt werden, wodurch insbesondere die Fachkr\u00e4fteeinwanderung profitiere. Ebenso verweist der Regierungsentwurf des KIMVG auf \"stetig steigende Antragsaufkommen\", begrenzte personelle und organisatorische Kapazit\u00e4ten, sowie eine uneinheitliche Verwaltungspraxis und Rechtsanwendung. Das Gesetz solle nun einen \"rechtssicheren und datenschutzkonformen Rahmen\" schaffen, um \"durch den Einsatz digitaler Verfahren \u2013 insbesondere K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz \u2013 die Effizienz, Einheitlichkeit, Qualit\u00e4t und Sicherheit\" der Verfahren zu erh\u00f6hen.
\nDer Regierungsentwurf des KIMVG wird damit durchg\u00e4ngig mit einer bestimmten Problemdiagnose begr\u00fcndet: Komplexe rechtliche Vorgaben, die Vielzahl von Antragsstrecken und Antr\u00e4gen f\u00fchrten zu einer uneinheitlichen Verwaltungspraxis; ohne strukturelle Anpassungen sei angesichts begrenzter Ressourcen eine zus\u00e4tzliche Belastung der Verfahren absehbar. Diese Diagnose trifft ein reales Problem: Der \u00f6ffentliche Dienst in Deutschland und insbesondere die Ausl\u00e4nderbeh\u00f6rden leiden unter Personalmangel, und langwierige Verfahren belasten sowohl Antragsstellende als auch die zust\u00e4ndigen Beamt*innen. Was die Antragszahlen betrifft, ist die Faktenlage jedoch weniger eindeutig. Die Gesamtzahl der Asylantr\u00e4ge beispielsweise sank von 330.000 im Jahr 2023 auf rund 130.000 im Jahr 2025.
\nVor diesem Hintergrund ist es bemerkenswert, dass der Entwurf KI als einzig denkbare und kostenneutrale L\u00f6sung darstellt und dabei zus\u00e4tzliche Ressourcen f\u00fcr die Ausl\u00e4nderbeh\u00f6rden oder vereinfachte Verfahrensregeln als Alternativen ebenso ausblendet wie die Kosten, die mit der Einf\u00fchrung von KI einhergehen werden. Die Forschung warnt vor der Annahme, dass die Einf\u00fchrung von KI in der \u00f6ffentlichen Verwaltung automatisch Kosteneinsparungen und Effizienzgewinne mit sich bringt. Wie auch die Deutsche Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) in ihrer Stellungnahme zum Regierungsentwurf anmerkt, erfordert eine weitergehende Digitalisierung und die Einf\u00fchrung von KI in der deutschen Migrationsverwaltung zun\u00e4chst zus\u00e4tzliches Personal, Schulungen und technische Infrastruktur \u2013 Kosten, die der Entwurf nicht ber\u00fccksichtigt. Die Argumentation im Entwurf steht f\u00fcr eine allgemeinere Tendenz, ein im Kern politisches Problem \u2013 Personalmangel, Ressourcenverteilung, komplexe verwaltungs- und rechtstechnische Sachverhalte \u2013 vorrangig durch neue Technologie l\u00f6sen zu wollen.
\n\u00a0
\nIm Rahmen des Gesetzgebungsprozesses ver\u00f6ffentlichte das BMI sechs Stellungnahmen von Bundesvereinigungen, Verb\u00e4nden und B\u00fcrgerrechtsorganisationen: der AWO Bundesverband e.V., die Bundesvereinigung der kommunalen Spitzenverb\u00e4nde, die Deutsche Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) e.V., der Deutsche Caritasverband e.V., Pro Asyl sowie Statefree e.V. Dar\u00fcber hinaus kommentierten weitere Akteur*innen den Gesetzesentwurf auf ihren eigenen Webseiten, wie beispielsweise netzpolitik.org, AlgorithmWatch oder auch die Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Informatik e.V.
\nMehrere Verb\u00e4nde erkennen an, dass die Digitalisierung der Migrationsverwaltung dringend n\u00f6tig ist, um Verfahren zu beschleunigen. Dennoch dominiert in den Stellungnahmen eine eher kritische Haltung, insbesondere mit Blick auf drei Punkte: (1) den fehlenden und unzureichenden Rechtsschutz; (2) Risiken von Diskriminierung und Bias; und (3) die Vagheit des Entwurfs, auch hinsichtlich der Entscheidungsmacht von KI-Systemen.
\nEin erster Kritikpunkt, der sich durch nahezu alle Stellungnahmen der Verb\u00e4nde zieht, betrifft die Vereinbarkeit mit Datenschutz, Verfassungsrecht und EU-Recht. Mehrere Verb\u00e4nde \u00e4u\u00dfern datenschutzrechtliche Bedenken, da die Nutzung personenbezogener Daten insgesamt zu umfassend sei. Der Entwurf erlaubt, unter bestimmten Umst\u00e4nden, auch die Verwendung nicht anonymisierter Daten. Hinsichtlich des Verfahrensmonitorings sollen selbst biometrische Daten weiterverarbeitet werden k\u00f6nnen, wenn ihre Aussonderung \"technisch unm\u00f6glich ist oder unverh\u00e4ltnism\u00e4\u00dfig hohen technischen Aufwand erfordert\". Auch ist fraglich, ob sensible, personenbezogene Daten wieder vollst\u00e4ndig gel\u00f6scht werden k\u00f6nnen, nachdem sie f\u00fcr die Entwicklung von KI-Systemen und insbesondere von Large Language Models (LLMs) genutzt wurden \u2013 Modelle, die basierend auf gro\u00dfen Datenmengen darauf abzielen, menschliche Sprache zu analysieren und zu generieren. Laut Pro Asyl verfehle der Entwurf au\u00dferdem die Anforderungen an gerechte und faire Verwaltungsverfahren im Sinne grundrechtskonformer Verfahrensgestaltung und effektiven Rechtsschutzes und schaffe stattdessen die Grundlage f\u00fcr \"intransparente, algorithmisch gesteuerte Entscheidungsprozesse\". Zwar postuliert der Entwurf, allgemein mit dem EU-Recht konform zu sein, doch werden mehreren Verb\u00e4nden und auch Wissenschaftler*innen zufolge Vorgaben hinsichtlich der EU Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) und der EU KI-Verordnung (KI-VO) missachtet. So beruft sich der Gesetzentwurf beispielsweise auf \u00a7 10 Abs. 3 der KI-VO, wonach Trainingsdaten \"relevant, hinreichend repr\u00e4sentativ, fehlerfrei und vollst\u00e4ndig\" sein m\u00fcssen. Wie die Deutsche Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) in ihrer Stellungnahme betont, ist dies im Migrationskontext eine hohe H\u00fcrde: Das Ausl\u00e4nderzentralregister (AZR), das weitgehend auf denselben Datenquellen basiert, mit denen die KI sehr wahrscheinlich trainiert werden w\u00fcrde, weist bekannterma\u00dfen erhebliche Genauigkeitsdefizite auf, die dadurch versch\u00e4rft werden, dass sich viele der relevanten Merkmale schnell \u00e4ndern und veralten.
\nEin zweiter akteurs\u00fcbergreifender Kritikpunkt betrifft Fragen rund um Diskriminierung und Bias der geplanten KI-Systeme. Der Entwurf nimmt die Beh\u00f6rden in die Pflicht, keine diskriminierenden Algorithmen herauszubilden oder zu verwenden, ohne jedoch zu erl\u00e4utern, wie das sichergestellt werden soll. Konkret besteht hier ein zentrales technisches Problem: Gro\u00dfe Sprachmodelle generieren Outputs durch erlernte Muster und statistische Wahrscheinlichkeiten auf Grundlage von Trainingsdaten. Werden umfassende Daten aus bereits abgeschlossenen Verfahren als Grundlage f\u00fcr ein KI-Training genutzt, k\u00f6nnten bereits existierende Verzerrungen reproduziert werden. So k\u00f6nne die Datengrundlage bei der KI-Entwicklung je nach Auswahl diskriminierende Stereotype widerspiegeln oder festigen, warnt Pro Asyl. Eine wirksame Gegenma\u00dfnahme bestehe, der Deutschen Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) zufolge, beispielsweise in verpflichtenden, externen und unabh\u00e4ngigen Kontrollverfahren.
\nEin dritter Kritikpunkt der Organisationen betrifft die Vagheit und mangelnde Bestimmtheit des Entwurfs, insbesondere mit Blick auf die Frage, wie viel Entscheidungsmacht KI-Systeme in Verfahren perspektivisch h\u00e4tten. Laut Entwurf verbleiben individuelle verfahrenstechnische Entscheidungen weiterhin in menschlicher Verantwortung und das BMI betont im Regierungsentwurf, dass \"die individuelle Pr\u00fcfung vollst\u00e4ndig in der Verantwortung der zust\u00e4ndigen Mitarbeitenden liege\". Hier kritisieren Verb\u00e4nde allerdings, dass unklar bleibt, wie dem sogenannten Automation-Bias vorgebeugt werden soll \u2013 also der Tendenz, maschinellen Entscheidungen eher zu vertrauen als dem menschlichen Urteil. Ohne flankierende Ma\u00dfnahmen k\u00f6nnten Entscheidungen so faktisch KI-basiert erfolgen. Die Stellungnahmen fordern hier mehrfach eine verbindliches Human-in-the-Loop-Prinzip und eine klarere Definition des Verh\u00e4ltnisses zwischen der KI-Nutzung f\u00fcr das allgemeine Verfahrensmonitoring und der Einzelfallentscheidung.
\nUnklarheiten bestehen jedoch nicht nur hinsichtlich der Entscheidungsmacht, sondern ziehen sich durch den gesamten Regierungsentwurf. Die Verb\u00e4nde kritisieren, dass weitreichende Rechtsgrundlagen f\u00fcr den KI-Einsatz geschaffen werden, ohne hinreichend festzulegen, welche konkreten Systeme k\u00fcnftig f\u00fcr welche Zwecke eingesetzt werden d\u00fcrfen und wo ihre Grenzen liegen. Der AWO Bundesverband e.V. bem\u00e4ngelt entsprechend, dass von regelbasierter Dokumentenerkennung bis zur vollautomatisierten Risikoeinsch\u00e4tzung nahezu alle Szenarien denkbar seien.
\nAngesichts dieser sich durch den Entwurf ziehenden Unklarheiten fordern Verb\u00e4nde teils eine intensive \u00dcberarbeitung, teils ein Zur\u00fcckziehen des Entwurfs.
\n\n
\u00dcber die drei zentralen Kritikpunkte der Zivilgesellschaft und Interessengruppen hinaus l\u00e4sst der Entwurf eine lange Liste weiterer Fragen unbeantwortet. Welche Transparenzma\u00dfnahmen w\u00fcrden f\u00fcr Migrantinnen und Asylbewerberinnen gelten, deren F\u00e4lle analysiert werden? Wie w\u00fcrden Sachbearbeiter*innen im Umgang mit diesen Systemen geschult? Wie lie\u00dfe sich verhindern, dass im Zuge einer uneinheitlich fortschreitenden Digitalisierung parallele, inkompatible Systeme zwischen den Beh\u00f6rden entstehen? Wie w\u00fcrden die Systeme der Komplexit\u00e4t unterschiedlicher Verfahrensarten und individueller Umst\u00e4nde gerecht werden?
\nBei vielen der Vorschl\u00e4ge des Entwurfs h\u00e4ngt es au\u00dferdem von der technischen Ausgestaltung und flankierenden Ma\u00dfnahmen, zum Beispiel Schulungen ab, wie rechtskonform und gewinnbringend sie f\u00fcr die Verwaltung aber auch Antragsstellende sein k\u00f6nnen. Das automatisierte Verfahrensmonitoring beispielsweise ist laut Entwurf auf die Gewinnung \"verallgemeinerungsf\u00e4higer Erkenntnisse\" ausgerichtet. Einerseits kann die Analyse vergangener Entscheidungen dazu beitragen, Inkonsistenzen, Diskriminierungsmuster oder strukturelle Fehlentwicklungen in der bisherigen Entscheidungspraxis sichtbar zu machen. Andererseits kann dieselbe Analyse eine normalisierende Wirkung entfalten, indem bestehende Entscheidungsmuster zum Ausgangspunkt f\u00fcr die Weiterentwicklung zuk\u00fcnftiger Verfahren werden. Insbesondere in Asylverfahren, in denen Anerkennungsquoten auch f\u00fcr Personen der gleichen Nationalit\u00e4t, mit \u00e4hnlichen Schutzgesuchen von politischen Faktoren beeinflusst werden und \u00fcber die Zeit variieren k\u00f6nnen, stellt sich die Frage, wie genau \"Muster\" erkannt und aktuelle Entscheidungspraktiken beeinflussen sollen.
\nNat\u00fcrlich l\u00e4sst sich nicht erwarten, dass ein Gesetzentwurf all diese Fragen bereits abschlie\u00dfend beantwortet. Bemerkenswert ist dennoch, wie unbestimmt der Entwurf an zentralen Stellen bleibt. Der Umfang dieser offenen Fragen ist selbst Teil der Kritik, wie auch zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen und Wissenschaftler*innen anmerken: Ein Gesetz, das eine dauerhafte Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von KI in der Migrationsverwaltung schaffen soll, \u00fcberl\u00e4sst zahlreiche operative Details \u2013 jene Details also, die dar\u00fcber entscheiden w\u00fcrden, ob die Systeme in der Praxis fair, nachvollziehbar und wirksam sind und wie stark KI die tats\u00e4chliche Entscheidungsfindung beeinflusst \u2013 einer sp\u00e4teren Kl\u00e4rung.
\n\n
Neben Kritikpunkten an dem konkreten Gesetzentwurf kristallisieren sich auch einige grunds\u00e4tzliche Fragen sowohl zum Prozess der Gesetzfindung als auch allgemein zum Einsatz von KI in der Migrationsverwaltung heraus. In Zeiten, in denen Digitalisierung bereits ein nicht wegzudenkender Bestandteil in der Gesellschaft scheint, geht es dabei vor allem um die Frage wie diese neue Dimension der Digitalisierung gestaltet werden kann, wer dabei beteiligt werden sollte und was wir aus anderen Kontexten lernen k\u00f6nnen.
\nFragen dieser Tragweite w\u00fcrden eigentlich eine breite gesellschaftspolitische Debatte erfordern. Eine solche Debatte hat bislang jedoch kaum stattgefunden \u2013 die Bundesregierung treibt den Gesetzgebungsprozess stattdessen mit erkennbarem zeitlichem Druck voran, was sich auch in der kurzen Beteiligungsfrist der Verb\u00e4nde widerspiegelt. Der Zeitdruck auf Seiten der Regierung geht bereits aus dem Eckpunktepapier von AA und BMI von 2025 hervor, wenn beispielsweise ein \"schneller, wirksamer und sicherer Modernisierungserfolg\" als erkl\u00e4rtes Ziel formuliert wird. Auch sah das Papier f\u00fcr den Sommer dieses Jahres eigentlich bereits die Verabschiedung des Gesetzes durch den Bundestag vor.
\nDem entgegen steht die Position, wonach eine potenziell so grundlegende Neuausrichtung der Migrationsverwaltung und Entscheidungspraxis durch zentrale Akteur*innen des Politikfeldes vorbereitet und durch den Gesetzgebungsprozess hinweg begleitet werden muss. So fordert der AWO Bundesverband e.V. beispielsweise \"eine sorgf\u00e4ltige rechtliche, ethische und praktische Pr\u00fcfung\", die viele der grunds\u00e4tzlichen Fragen vor einer Einf\u00fchrung von KI-Systemen beleuchten m\u00fcsse. Konkret schl\u00e4gt der Verband deshalb eine unabh\u00e4ngige und interdisziplin\u00e4r besetzte Expert*innenkommission vor, um zun\u00e4chst zu pr\u00fcfen, \"ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen der Einsatz von KI-Systemen in Verwaltungsverfahren mit den Anforderungen des Rechtsstaats sowie den Rechten der Betroffenen vereinbar ist\". Offen bleibt zudem, welche Akteur*innen die von KI-Systemen Betroffenen angemessen repr\u00e4sentieren k\u00f6nnen bzw. wie Migrant*innen selbst \u2013 beispielsweise durch Akteur*innen wie das Refugee Advisory Board (RAB) Germany oder die Vielzahl von Migrant*innenorganisationen\u2013 den Gesetzgebungsprozess beeinflussen k\u00f6nnen.
\nEine angemessene Beteiligung verschiedener Akteur*innen und eine gesellschaftspolitische Diskussion solch weitreichender Entscheidungen ist nicht nur demokratietheoretisch w\u00fcnschenswert, sondern letztlich auch f\u00fcr das Gelingen KI-gest\u00fctzter Verfahren entscheidend. Eine Vielzahl wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten hat bisherige \u2013 eher top-down initiierte \u2013 Bestrebungen, KI im Bereich Migration und Asyl einzusetzen, kritisch beleuchtet: etwa die Dialekterkennungssoftware des BAMF oder den Einsatz des Geomatch-Algorithmus in den Niederlanden, der mittlerweile bereits in der Pilotphase gestoppt wurde. Zuvor hatten Forschungsarbeiten auf die diskriminierenden Wirkweisen des zugrundeliegenden Algorithmus hingewiesen. Solche Systeme sind nicht nur mit Blick auf die Betroffenen h\u00f6chst problematisch und k\u00f6nnen zu Verletzungen von Grund- und Menschenrechten f\u00fchren, sondern k\u00f6nnen letztlich auch einen Reputationsschaden f\u00fcr die zust\u00e4ndigen Regierungen mit sich bringen.
\nDass KI und Digitalisierung globale Mobilit\u00e4t ma\u00dfgeblich ver\u00e4ndern und Chancen, Herausforderungen sowie Risiken f\u00fcr das Migrationsmanagement in der EU und Deutschland mit sich bringen, r\u00fcckt zunehmend in den Fokus wissenschaftlicher und gesellschaftspolitscher Debatten. Obwohl das KIMVG ein konkretes Beispiel daf\u00fcr ist, wie Gesetzgebung diese Chancen und Herausforderungen gestalten kann, findet die Auseinandersetzung bislang vor allem in Fachkreisen statt. In der breiteren \u00d6ffentlichkeit und den gro\u00dfen Medien wird der Entwurf bisher nur punktuell aufgegriffen. Das erschwert insbesondere Betroffenen \u2013 zus\u00e4tzlich zur juristischen Komplexit\u00e4t des Gesetzes \u2013 den Zugang zum Diskurs. Insgesamt macht der Entwurf deutlich, dass Fragen des KI-Einsatzes in der Migrations- und Asylverwaltung zweierlei ben\u00f6tigen: einen pr\u00e4zise formulierten und grundrechtskonformen rechtlichen Rahmen genauso wie eine grunds\u00e4tzliche gesellschaftliche Debatte dar\u00fcber, welchen Stellenwert KI und Automatisierungen in grundrechtssensiblen Verfahren haben sollten und ob und wie sie halten k\u00f6nnen, was sie versprechen.
\nEine englischsprachige, k\u00fcrzere Version dieses Posts wurde auf TechPolicy Press ver\u00f6ffentlicht.
\n\n
Zitiervorschlag:
\nWelfens, Natalie; Flesch, Josefine; Quante, Bernard. Automatisierte Migrations- und Asylverwaltung? Der Gesetzesentwurf zum KIMVG auf dem Pr\u00fcfstand. FluchtforschungsBlog\u00a0 9. September 2026. https://fluchtforschung.net/automatisierte-migrations-und-asylverwaltung-der-gesetzesentwurf-zum-kimvg-auf-dem-pruefstand/. https://doi.org/10.59350/ydjk8-57942.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/ydjk8-57942","guid":"https://fluchtforschung.net/?p=15944","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1788912000,"rid":"206na-z0869","summary":"Der Ende Juli verabschiedete Regierungsentwurf des KI-Migrationsverwaltungsgesetzes (KIMVG) will eine breite Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz (KI) in Visa-, Aufenthalts- und Asylverfahren schaffen.","tags":["Deutsch","Forschung","Asylverwaltung","Digitalisierung","Gesetzgebung"],"title":"Automatisierte Migrations- und Asylverwaltung? Der Gesetzesentwurf zum KIMVG auf dem Pr\u00fcfstand","updated_at":1789458208,"url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/automatisierte-migrations-und-asylverwaltung-der-gesetzesentwurf-zum-kimvg-auf-dem-pruefstand/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc","created":1788652800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Regular nonsense about tech and its effects \ud83d\ude43","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/shkspr","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/feed/DOI","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog","issn":"2753-1570","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"shkspr","status":"active","subfield":"1712","title":"Terence Eden's Blog","updated":1789385693,"use_api":false},"blog_name":"Terence Eden's Blog","blog_slug":"shkspr","content_html":"The HTML specification is old and, while there is beauty in longevity, there's an inevitable build-up of boondoggles and baggage. Some elements like have sadly been consigned to the dustbin of history - but there are still vestigial attributes just waiting to trip up the unwary.
If you're young, you may never have heard of Image Maps. Back in the bad-old-days, there weren't many good options for laying out a pixel-perfect HTML page. One option was to draw your website in an image editor, load it into a website as an image, and then make certain areas of the image clickable.
\nOne way to do this was to add the attribute ismap. It is only valid on element. Like so:
\n ![](\"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/09/esoteric-html-ismap-vs-css//img.png\")
\n\nWhen you click on that image, you don't go to click.php - instead you go to click.php?12,34 where the two numbers represent the X and Y coordinates of where on the image you clicked. That's brilliant! Your server knows the size of the image - so if you click on the top half it can take you to one place, and if you click in the lower left corner you can go to another.
Brilliant!
\nExcept, of course, there's a catch!
\nThe specification of the
\nThe ismap attribute [\u2026] indicates by its presence that the element provides access to a server-side image map. This affects how events are handled on the corresponding a element.
Instead, the details are in 4.6.2 Links created by a and area elements:
\n\nset x to the distance in CSS pixels from the left edge of the image to the location of the click, and set y to the distance in CSS pixels from the top edge of the image to the location of the click.
Did you notice the gotcha?
\n\nthe distance in CSS pixels
This is not based on the actual size of the image! It is based on the layout
\nLet's suppose you have an image which is 100 x 100 pixels. It is added to the website like this:
\n![](\"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/09/esoteric-html-ismap-vs-css//100.png\")
Click on this image and you'll see that your X and Y positions are based on the natural size of the image.
\nBut suppose you change the HTML to this:
\n
When you click on the image, the X & Y positions are not based on the actual size of the image; they're based on its layout size.
\nSuppose you use CSS to resize the image:
\n
The X and Y aren't based on the image's natural size, nor their declared height and width. Instead they're based on the size on screen determined by CSS.
\nAnd, of course, that's not necessarily your CSS! If the user has turned off style sheets, supplied their own, or uses an accessibility tool - the CSS size of the image might be vastly different from what you intended.
\nIf you have an image 100 pixels wide and you want people clicking on the left half to go to a different location to the people clicking on the right half, you might have server-side code which says:
\nif X < 50 :\n return page1.html\nelse\n return page2.html\nBut if the CSS has stretched, shrunk, skewed, or distorted the image then you have no way of knowing where the user clicked.
\nAs far as I can tell, this behaviour is the same in all major browsers.
\nBasically, what I'm saying is, don't use ismap unless you're absolutely sure that there will be no CSS shenanigans. Even then, it probably isn't worth the risk.
![\"\"](\"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/themes/edent-wordpress-theme/info/okgo.php?ID=73143&HTTP_REFERER=DOI\")
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rnvhd-cxa43","guid":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rnvhd-cxa43","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/09/esoteric-html-ismap-vs-css//100.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789344000,"rid":"mxhph-mjj85","summary":"The HTML specification is old and, while there is beauty in longevity, there's an inevitable build-up of boondoggles and baggage. Some elements like have sadly been consigned to the dustbin of history - but there are still vestigial attributes just waiting to trip up the unwary. If you're young, you may never have heard of Image Maps.","tags":["Css","HTML5","Webdev"],"title":"Esoteric HTML - ismap vs CSS","updated_at":1789458208,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/09/esoteric-html-ismap-vs-css/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Ko-AutorInnen"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"ad6b31bb-31f3-4277-bcf1-7bc662d83893","created":1740441600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Netzwerk Fluchtforschung ist ein multi-disziplin\u00e4res Netzwerk von Wissenschaftler*innen die zu jeglichen Aspekten von Flucht und Fl\u00fcchtlingsschutz forschen.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/fluchtforschung","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/ad6b31bb-31f3-4277-bcf1-7bc662d83893/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"fluchtforschung","status":"active","subfield":"3312","title":"Netzwerk Fluchtforschung","updated":1789374179,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Netzwerk Fluchtforschung","blog_slug":"fluchtforschung","content_html":"Die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS) verspricht besonderen Schutz f\u00fcr unbegleitete minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete. Gleichzeitig h\u00e4ngt dieser Schutz davon ab, ob Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit \u00fcberhaupt anerkannt wird. Der Beitrag zeigt am Beispiel Maltas, wie Altersfeststellungen \u00fcber den Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen entscheiden und argumentiert, dass diese Dynamik mit der Umsetzung der neuen GEAS-Grenzverfahren k\u00fcnftig weiter an Bedeutung gewinnen k\u00f6nnte.
\n\n
Am 12. Juni 2026 begann die Anwendung der Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS), die einen tiefgreifenden Umbau der europ\u00e4ischen Asylpolitik markiert. Neue Screening- und Grenzverfahren sollen Asylverfahren beschleunigen, Zust\u00e4ndigkeiten harmonisieren und R\u00fcckf\u00fchrungen effizienter gestalten. Kommissionspr\u00e4sidentin Ursula von der Leyen sprach in diesem Zusammenhang von einem \"fresh start\". Insbesondere die Ausweitung geschlossener Grenzverfahren und die M\u00f6glichkeit l\u00e4ngerfristiger Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen an den EU-Au\u00dfengrenzen haben im Kontext der Reform erhebliche Kritik seitens Nichtregierungsorganisationen hervorgerufen. Gleichzeitig sieht die Reform f\u00fcr unbegleitete minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete besondere Verfahrensgarantien vor. Neben bereits bestehenden kinderrechtlichen Grunds\u00e4tzen wie der Ber\u00fccksichtigung des Kindeswohls z\u00e4hlt dazu insbesondere die weitgehende Ausnahme unbegleiteter Minderj\u00e4hriger von den neuen Asylgrenzverfahren. Damit pr\u00e4sentiert sich das neue GEAS nicht nur als Instrument migrationspolitischer Steuerung, sondern zugleich als ein System, das Effizienz und menschenrechtliche Standards miteinander verbinden will.
\nOb diese Schutzgarantien in der Praxis tats\u00e4chlich greifen, h\u00e4ngt jedoch von einer zentralen Voraussetzung ab: Minderj\u00e4hrige m\u00fcssen zun\u00e4chst \u00fcberhaupt als solche anerkannt werden. Das ist im Flucht- und Migrationsbereich kein neuer Umstand.\u00a0 Mit der Einf\u00fchrung der neuen Grenzverfahren ver\u00e4ndert sich jedoch die Tragweite dieser Entscheidung erheblich. W\u00e4hrend viele Schutzsuchende k\u00fcnftig Verfahren innerhalb geschlossener oder haft\u00e4hnlicher Einrichtungen durchlaufen sollen, sind unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige hiervon grunds\u00e4tzlich ausgenommen. Die Altersfeststellung ist dabei der entscheidende Faktor, ob Betroffene den neuen Grenzverfahren und den damit verbundenen Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen unterworfen werden. Damit r\u00fcckt sie ins Zentrum dieses Reformversprechens.
\n\u00c4hnliche Dynamiken zeigen sich bereits seit einiger Zeit am Beispiel Maltas. Als Inselstaat an der s\u00fcdlichen EU-Au\u00dfengrenze verfolgt Malta seit Jahren ein Grenzregime, das der Logik der neuen GEAS-Grenzverfahren \u00e4hnlich ist. Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen bilden dabei den Regelfall, w\u00e4hrend Ausnahmen insbesondere f\u00fcr als vulnerabel eingestufte Personen vorgesehen sind. Ob Betroffene Zugang zu diesen Ausnahmen erhalten, h\u00e4ngt ma\u00dfgeblich von Verfahren zur Feststellung von Vulnerabilit\u00e4t ab \u2013 etwa von der Anerkennung als Minderj\u00e4hrige*r. Dabei zeigen sowohl Berichte von NGOs als auch Gerichtsentscheidungen des Europ\u00e4ischen Gerichtshofs f\u00fcr Menschenrechte (EGMR) wiederholt, dass trotz dieser Schutzversprechen Minderj\u00e4hrige regelm\u00e4\u00dfig inhaftiert werden.
\nDer vorliegende Beitrag st\u00fctzt sich auf die Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Studie, die zwischen November 2024 und Januar 2025 auf Malta durchgef\u00fchrt wurde. Dabei bilden insgesamt sieben qualitative Interviews mit Rechtsanw\u00e4lt*innen und Sozialarbeiter*innen aus zivilgesellschaftlichen und staatlichen Organisationen, die in Malta mit Altersfeststellungen sowie dem Schutz unbegleiteter Minderj\u00e4hriger befasst sind, die Grundlage der Forschung, die anhand der qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse ausgewertet wurde. Die Interviews erm\u00f6glichen Einblicke in die Rolle der Altersfeststellung innerhalb des maltesischen Grenz- und Detentionssystems und deren Auswirkungen auf den Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen. Ausgehend von diesen Befunden wird anschlie\u00dfend diskutiert, welche Herausforderungen sich daraus f\u00fcr die Umsetzung der GEAS-Reform ergeben.
\n\u00a0
\nSchutzsuchende, die in Malta ankommen, werden seit Jahren unmittelbar nach ihrer Ankunft unterschiedlichen Formen der Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkung unterworfen. Dabei erfolgt eine grundlegende Unterscheidung zwischen Personen, die als vulnerabel gelten, und solchen, die dieser Kategorie nicht zugeordnet werden. W\u00e4hrend Familien mit Kindern sowie Personen, die als vulnerabel eingestuft werden \u2013 etwa Minderj\u00e4hrige \u2013 in sogenannten Open Centers untergebracht werden, bleiben alleinreisende M\u00e4nner in der Regel in geschlossenen Haftzentren, sogenannten Detention-Centern. Diese Praxis wurde sowohl von den interviewten Fachkr\u00e4ften als auch in Berichten von NGOs und internationalen Organisationen beschrieben.
\nBereits hier, direkt nach Ankunft, entscheidet die erste Altersfeststellung damit unmittelbar dar\u00fcber, ob unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige inhaftiert werden. Nach Aussagen der interviewten Fachkr\u00e4fte werden Jugendliche, deren Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit nicht direkt als \"offensichtlich\" wahrgenommen wird, zun\u00e4chst wie Erwachsene behandelt und in geschlossenen Einrichtungen untergebracht. Diese Praxis wurde sowohl von NGO-Mitarbeitenden als auch von staatlichen Akteur*innen best\u00e4tigt. Damit weicht die beschriebene Praxis von zentralen kinderrechtlichen Grunds\u00e4tzen ab. Sowohl die \"presumption of minority\" als auch der \"benefit of the doubt\" verlangen, dass Personen bei Zweifeln \u00fcber ihr Alter zun\u00e4chst als minderj\u00e4hrig behandelt werden, bis ihre Vollj\u00e4hrigkeit zweifelsfrei festgestellt wurde. Die in den Interviews und Berichten geschilderte Praxis deutet hingegen darauf hin, dass in Malta h\u00e4ufig zun\u00e4chst von einer Vollj\u00e4hrigkeit ausgegangen wird. Aus kinderrechtlicher Perspektive wird damit die grundlegende Schutzlogik dieser Prinzipien faktisch umgekehrt.
\nDie Inhaftierung hat f\u00fcr die Betroffenen erhebliche Auswirkungen. Maltesische Detention-Center sind rigide Haftanstalten, in denen Schutzsuchende teilweise \u00fcber viele Monate unter stark restriktiven Bedingungen festgehalten werden. Sowohl die Interviewteilnehmer*innen als auch NGO-Berichte beschreiben \u00fcberf\u00fcllte Zellen mit zahlreichen Personen auf engem Raum, eingeschr\u00e4nktem Zugang zu hygienischer Versorgung sowie dem Konfiszieren pers\u00f6nlicher Gegenst\u00e4nde wie Mobiltelefonen oder eigener Kleidung. Stattdessen werden Betroffene mit Einheitskleidung und Identifikationsnummern versehen, was von Fachkr\u00e4ften als Verlust pers\u00f6nlicher Identit\u00e4t und Entindividualisierung eingeordnet wird. Zudem werden Minderj\u00e4hrige bei Transfers oder externen Terminen in Handschellen vorgef\u00fchrt. Generell sind die Zugangsm\u00f6glichkeiten f\u00fcr Anw\u00e4lt*innen stark eingeschr\u00e4nkt, w\u00e4hrend Sozialarbeiter*innen von NGOs \u00fcberhaupt keinen Zugang erhalten. Die einzige Kontaktm\u00f6glichkeit besteht \u00fcber ein Telefon, welches gerade nach Ankunft von neuen Schutzsuchenden teils bis zu zwei Wochen blockiert werde. Die schlechten Bedingungen sowie die lange Unsicherheit \u00fcber den eigenen Status w\u00e4hrend laufender Verfahren f\u00fchren dabei teilweise zu erheblichen psychischen Belastungen und verst\u00e4rken bestehende Traumatisierungen, wie Studien zeigen konnten.
\nGleichzeitig verweisen insbesondere die Interviews mit nicht-staatlichen Akteur*innen auf erhebliche Zweifel hinsichtlich der Verl\u00e4sslichkeit der Altersfeststellungsverfahren selbst. Nach Aussagen mehrerer Befragter spielen subjektive Einsch\u00e4tzungen von Aussehen, Verhalten oder Auftreten der Betroffenen eine wichtige Rolle innerhalb des Verfahrens. Annahmen dar\u00fcber, wie sich Minderj\u00e4hrige \"typischerweise\" verhalten oder aussehen sollten, nehmen dabei ebenso Einfluss auf Entscheidungen wie westlich gepr\u00e4gte Vorstellungen \u00fcber Biografie, Familienstrukturen oder Geburtstage. Diese Ergebnisse korrespondieren mit Studien aus anderen europ\u00e4ischen L\u00e4ndern, z.B. Gro\u00dfbritannien, Norwegen oder Deutschland, die das Altersfeststellungsverfahren grunds\u00e4tzlich als subjektiv kritisieren. Hinzu kommt in Malta der Einsatz medizinischer Verfahren wie sogenannter Knochentests, obwohl deren geringe Aussagekraft seit Jahren wissenschaftlich belegt ist.
\nIm Falle einer Klassifizierung als vollj\u00e4hrig, besteht in Malta die M\u00f6glichkeit eines Widerspruchs innerhalb von drei Tagen. Mehrere Interviewpartner*innen beschrieben allerdings, dass genau diese Widerspr\u00fcche der h\u00e4ufigste Grund f\u00fcr lange Detention-Aufenthalte von Minderj\u00e4hrigen seien, da sich diese Verfahren \u00fcber Monate hinziehen k\u00f6nnen. In dieser Zeit verbleiben die Betroffenen weiterhin in den geschlossenen Einrichtungen. Einzelne Fachkr\u00e4fte berichteten von F\u00e4llen, in denen Minderj\u00e4hrige erst nach acht Monaten offiziell als Kinder anerkannt wurden.
\nEinen Hauptkritikpunkt am Altersfeststellungssystem sahen mehrere Teilnehmer*innen in der fehlenden institutionellen Unabh\u00e4ngigkeit innerhalb des Systems. Kritisch hervorgehoben wurde insbesondere die Rolle der Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS), die sowohl Schutz- und Betreuungsfunktionen gegen\u00fcber unbegleiteten Minderj\u00e4hrigen \u00fcbernimmt als auch \u00fcber den Ausgang der Altersfeststellungsverfahren entscheidet. Mehrere Befragte beschrieben diese Doppelrolle als strukturellen Interessenkonflikt. Zudem verwiesen Interviews darauf, dass verschiedene staatliche Akteur*innen und Beh\u00f6rden innerhalb desselben institutionellen Gef\u00fcges eng miteinander verflochten sind, wodurch unabh\u00e4ngige Kontrolle und wirksame Beschwerdemechanismen zus\u00e4tzlich erschwert werden.
\nSchlie\u00dflich deuten die Interviews darauf hin, dass die Altersfeststellung in Malta nicht ausschlie\u00dflich als administratives Verfahren wahrgenommen wird. Fachkr\u00e4fte beschrieben wiederholt rassistische und entw\u00fcrdigende Praktiken innerhalb der Haftzentren. So werde etwa im sogenannten \"Minderj\u00e4hrigenbereich\" gezielt Zeichentrickfilme f\u00fcr Kleinkinder im Fernsehen gezeigt, um Jugendliche, die angeben minderj\u00e4hrig zu sein, l\u00e4cherlich zu machen. Mehrere Befragte hatten den Eindruck, dass die Bedingungen gezielt abschreckend gestaltet w\u00fcrden und Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit nicht als Anlass f\u00fcr besonderen Schutz, sondern als potenzieller Versuch wahrgenommen werde, das System auszunutzen.
\n\n
Mit der neuen GEAS-Reform baut die EU die Nutzung beschleunigter Grenzverfahren innerhalb geschlossener beziehungsweise haft\u00e4hnlicher Einrichtungen erheblich aus. Schutzsuchende sollen k\u00fcnftig bereits unmittelbar nach ihrer Ankunft ein bis zu siebent\u00e4giges Screening-Verfahren durchlaufen, in dem Identit\u00e4t, Gesundheitszustand, Sicherheitsaspekte und potenzielle Vulnerabilit\u00e4ten festgestellt werden. Gleichzeitig findet dieses Verfahren weitgehend innerhalb geschlossener Strukturen statt, in denen der Zugang unabh\u00e4ngiger Akteur*innen erheblich eingeschr\u00e4nkt sein kann. Gerade unter solchen Bedingungen stellt sich die Frage, wie Schutzbedarfe \u00fcberhaupt verl\u00e4sslich identifiziert werden sollen.
\nIm Anschluss sieht die Reform f\u00fcr einen Teil der Schutzsuchenden Asylverfahren an den EU-Au\u00dfengrenzen vor, bei denen sie w\u00e4hrenddessen rechtlich als \"nicht eingereist\" gelten. Die sogenannte \"Fiktion der Nichteinreise\" erm\u00f6glicht es, diese Verfahren an den Au\u00dfengrenzen durchzuf\u00fchren, ohne dass die betroffenen Personen rechtlich als in das Hoheitsgebiet eingereist gelten. In der Praxis schafft sie damit die Voraussetzung f\u00fcr Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen, denn Grenzverfahren, die eine Fiktion der Nichteinreise voraussetzen, sind \"ohne Ma\u00dfnahmen mit freiheitsentziehendem Charakter nicht vorstellbar\". Betroffen sind insbesondere Schutzsuchende aus Herkunftsstaaten mit niedrigen EU-weiten Anerkennungsquoten sowie Personen, denen eine Einreise \u00fcber sogenannte \"sichere Drittstaaten\" zugeschrieben wird.
\nZwar sieht die Reform vor, dass unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige grunds\u00e4tzlich von den neuen Grenzverfahren ausgenommen bleiben. In der Praxis greift dieser Schutz jedoch nur dann, wenn Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit zuvor anerkannt wurde. Damit erh\u00e4lt die Altersfeststellung innerhalb des GEAS eine \u00e4hnliche Schl\u00fcsselfunktion wie bereits heute im maltesischen Grenzregime. Sie entscheidet dar\u00fcber, wer Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen erh\u00e4lt \u2013 und wer weiterhin den Logiken beschleunigter Grenzverfahren und Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen unterworfen bleibt.
\nHinzu kommt, dass die Reform zahlreiche Fragen hinsichtlich der konkreten Ausgestaltung der Altersfeststellung offenl\u00e4sst. Zwar betont das GEAS multidisziplin\u00e4re Verfahren sowie den \"benefit of the doubt\", zugleich fehlen jedoch klare Vorgaben dazu, wie Betroffene w\u00e4hrend laufender Verfahren untergebracht werden sollen, wie unabh\u00e4ngige Kontrolle gew\u00e4hrleistet werden kann oder welche Schutzmechanismen greifen, solange Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit noch nicht offiziell anerkannt wurde. Gerade die Erfahrungen aus Malta verdeutlichen jedoch, welche erheblichen Konsequenzen diese Phase der Unsicherheit f\u00fcr Betroffene haben kann.
\n\n
Die Erfahrungen aus Malta legen nahe, dass mit der Ausweitung beschleunigter Grenzverfahren jene Vulnerabilit\u00e4tskategorien an Bedeutung gewinnen, die besondere Schutzrechte vermitteln. Schutz wird dabei nicht von vornherein gew\u00e4hrt, sondern setzt zun\u00e4chst voraus, dass Personen administrativ als schutzbed\u00fcrftig anerkannt werden. Gerade der Altersfeststellung kommt dabei eine zentrale Bedeutung zu, da sie dar\u00fcber entscheidet, ob Betroffene Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen erhalten oder den Grenzverfahren und den damit verbundenen Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen unterworfen bleiben.
\nDiese Entwicklung kann eine paradoxe Dynamik hervorrufen. Je st\u00e4rker Schutzrechte an die Anerkennung spezifischer Vulnerabilit\u00e4ten gekn\u00fcpft werden, desto st\u00e4rker geraten diese Kategorien selbst unter Rechtfertigungs- und Verdachtsdruck. Altersfeststellungen dienen weniger der Feststellung objektiver Tatsachen als vielmehr der Entscheidung dar\u00fcber, \"wer schutzw\u00fcrdig ist\" und wer als \"Betr\u00fcger\" erscheint, der das System missbraucht. Die Erfahrungen aus Malta lassen sich vor diesem Hintergrund als Beispiel daf\u00fcr lesen, wie Vulnerabilit\u00e4t nicht nur zur Grundlage von Schutz, sondern zugleich zu einem Gegenstand migrationspolitischer Kontrolle werden kann.
\nMit der Umsetzung des neuen GEAS d\u00fcrfte die Bedeutung dieser Dynamik weiter zunehmen. Je gr\u00f6\u00dfer die rechtlichen Unterschiede zwischen denjenigen sind, die als schutzbed\u00fcrftig anerkannt werden, und denjenigen, die den Grenzverfahren unterworfen bleiben, desto folgenreicher werden die Verfahren, die \u00fcber diese Einordnung entscheiden. Damit stellt sich die grunds\u00e4tzliche Frage, inwieweit Schutzklauseln tats\u00e4chlich geeignet sind, die Ausweitung restriktiver Grenzverfahren menschenrechtlich abzusichern. Denn je st\u00e4rker Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen durch Ausnahmen f\u00fcr bestimmte Gruppen legitimiert werden, desto entscheidender wird, ob diese Gruppen auch tats\u00e4chlich zuverl\u00e4ssig identifiziert werden k\u00f6nnen. Andernfalls besteht die Gefahr, dass die vorgesehenen Ausnahmen f\u00fcr vulnerable Personen zur Legitimation eines restriktiven Grenzregimes beitragen, w\u00e4hrend der tats\u00e4chliche Zugang zu diesen Schutzrechten von vorgelagerten Verwaltungsentscheidungen abh\u00e4ngt.
\n\n
Zitiervorschlag:
\nSilber, David. Altersfeststellung als Zugangsschwelle zu Schutz: Lehren aus Malta f\u00fcr das neue GEAS. FluchtforschungsBlog 2. September 2026. https://fluchtforschung.net/altersfeststellung-als-zugangsschwelle-zu-schutz-lehren-aus-malta-fuer-das-neue-geas/. https://doi.org/10.59350/3fxks-51f10.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/3fxks-51f10","guid":"https://fluchtforschung.net/?p=15937","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1788307200,"rid":"9cg2x-f8v76","summary":"Die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS) verspricht besonderen Schutz f\u00fcr unbegleitete minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete. Gleichzeitig h\u00e4ngt dieser Schutz davon ab, ob Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit \u00fcberhaupt anerkannt wird.","tags":["Deutsch","Forschung","EU-Au\u00dfengrenze","Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS)","Unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete"],"title":"Altersfeststellung als Zugangsschwelle zu Schutz: Lehren aus Malta f\u00fcr das neue GEAS","updated_at":1789458205,"url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/altersfeststellung-als-zugangsschwelle-zu-schutz-lehren-aus-malta-fuer-das-neue-geas/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Peroni","given":"Silvio"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"OpenCitations Team"}],"community_id":"c8efeda5-cd52-472d-9537-6915b9c62e34","created":1681862400,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"The blog of the OpenCitations Infrastructure","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/opencitations","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c8efeda5-cd52-472d-9537-6915b9c62e34/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"opencitations","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"OpenCitations blog","updated":1789379379,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"OpenCitations blog","blog_slug":"opencitations","content_html":"\"Director's cut\" is a new bimonthly blog series launched on the OpenCitations blog to share the Director's point of view on the hidden work happening within our infrastructure.
\nIn our roadmap, informed by a community survey we conducted to address the needs of our users (and potential users), we promised to focus, among other things, on strengthening backend development to foster better semantic interoperability with other research infrastructures. Indeed, such a topic is gaining momentum in recent months and has generated a lot of useful discussion within the community interested in open scholarly infrastructures (OSIs) \u2013 e.g. with the last and recent event about ORION-DBs. As anticipated in our annual report, we have spent significant effort over the past two years reengineering OpenCitations entire technical infrastructure to better comply with the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).\u00a0
\nAmong the results of our efforts, we have worked on devising a general framework, introduced in a paper, to define the architecture of the computational unit of an OSI grounded in the POSI, defining what we think are the core principles and technical features that should be guaranteed \u2013 spoiler: separation of operational domains, orchestration, scalability, observability, automation, and workflow portability. While useful for informing and documenting the choices we made in this context, sharing this framework also helps other OSIs in strengthening their scholarly sovereignty. To enable OSIs and other actors to continue the discussion on the content of the paper introducing the framework, we have created a space on PREreview to favour an open discussion.
\nThe new OpenCitations technical infrastructure has allowed us to improve semantic interoperability with other research infrastructures by adopting the Scientific Knowledge Graph \u2013 Interoperability Framework (SKG-IF). SKG-IF is an extensible framework, created in the context of an RDA working group, that enables the exchange of data about core research entities included in scientific knowledge graphs, thus providing a standardised approach to model a minimal set of scholarly data and enabling one to mash up data from different sources to support diverse applications. In particular, SKG-IF includes a data model, expresses data in JSON-LD, and provides an OpenAPI specification for enabling requesting, searching, and filtering scholarly data.
\nOver the past week, we released the OpenCitations implementation of the SKG-IF API, now available in production. This new API covers requests for all the entities we describe in our data (research products, persons, organisations, and venues). In contrast, other SKG-IF entities (grants, data sources, and topics) may be available in other OSIs that enable access to their data via new SKG-IF API endpoints. From a technical perspective, the OpenCitations SKG-IF API uses the new version of RAMOSE, a tool developed and maintained by OpenCitations to create REST APIs over SPARQL endpoints, which also provides a dedicated SKG-IF module (briefly introduced in a new paper and in its documentation) to simplify adoption by RDF scholarly data sources that want to provide an SKG-IF API for accessing their data.
\nThe adoption of such technologies enables, in principle, the creation of a federation of distributed open research information sources that, by adopting SKG-IF, can provide their data (which can be expressed, internally to an infrastructure, as knowledge graphs, stored in relational databases, etc.) without the need to change their internal data model and technologies. What is needed is an SKG-IF Open REST API endpoint that maps the internal data model into SKG-IF. This choice preserves each OSI's local autonomy and sovereignty, which is usually maintained by independent organisations with their own governance, and avoids costly redesign of established systems.
\nAt OpenCitations, we are actively involved in the GRAPHIA project, where we are participating in an experiment that aims to create a federated infrastructure for SSH knowledge graphs, using SKG-IF as the interoperability contract for the federation. We will share more about the results of this experiment in one of the upcoming issues of this blog series.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/wvdh7-efj72","guid":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/?p=4355","image":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/files/2026/09/Implementing-Semantic-Interoperability-1.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789344000,"rid":"9jrdz-4tn94","summary":"\"Director's cut\" is a new bimonthly blog series launched on the OpenCitations blog to share the Director's point of view on the hidden work happening within our infrastructure.","tags":["Bibliographic References","Director's Cut","Open Citations","OpenCitations","OpenCitations Indexes"],"title":"Director's cut #1: implementing semantic interoperability","updated_at":1789458205,"url":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/4355","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":1713312000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/tritonstation","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://tritonstation.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tritonstation","status":"active","subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":1789075797,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"The week of June 5, 2017, we held a workshop on dwarf galaxies and the dark matter problem. The workshop was attended by many leaders in the field – giants of dwarf galaxy research. It was held on the campus of Case Western Reserve University and supported by the John Templeton Foundation. It resulted in many fascinating discussions which I can’t possibly begin to share in full here, but I’ll say a few words.
\nDwarf galaxies are among the most dark matter dominated objects in the universe. Or, stated more properly, they exhibit the largest mass discrepancies. This makes them great places to test theories of dark matter and modified gravity. By the end, we had come up with a few important tests for both \u039bCDM and MOND. A few of these we managed to put on a white board. These are hardly a complete list, but provide a basis for discussion.
\n![\"LCDM_whiteboard\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/lcdm_whiteboard.jpg?resize=700%2C933&ssl=1\")
UFDs in field: Over the past few years, a number of extremely tiny dwarf galaxies have been identified as satellites of the Milky Way galaxy. These “ultrafaint dwarfs” are vaguely defined as being fainter than 100,000 solar luminosities, with the smallest examples having only a few hundred stars. This is absurdly small by galactic standards, having the stellar content of individual star clusters within the Milky Way. Indeed, it is not obvious to me that all of the ultrafaint dwarfs deserve to be recognized as dwarf galaxies, as some may merely be fragmentary portions of the Galactic stellar halo composed of stars coincident in phase space. Nevertheless, many may well be stellar systems external to the Milky Way that orbit it as dwarf satellites.
\nThat multitudes of minuscule dark matter halos exist is a fundamental prediction of the \u039bCDM cosmogony. These should often contain ultrafaint dwarf galaxies, and not only as satellites of giant galaxies like the Milky Way. Indeed, one expects to see many ultrafaints in the “field” beyond the orbital vicinity of the Milky Way where we have found them so far. These are predicted to exist in great numbers, and contain uniformly old stars. The “old stars” portion of the prediction stems from the reionization of the universe impeding star formation in the smallest dark matter halos. Upcoming surveys like LSST should provide a test of this prediction.
\nFrom an empirical perspective, I do expect that we will continue to discover galaxies of ever lower luminosity and surface brightness. In the field, I expect that these will be predominantly gas rich dwarfs like Leo P rather than gas-free, old stellar systems like the satellite ultrafaints. My expectation is an extrapolation of past experience, not a theory-specific prediction.
\nNo Large Cores: Many of the simulators present at the workshop showed that if the energy released by supernovae was well directed, it could reshape the steep (‘cuspy’) interior density profiles of dark matter halos into something more like the shallow (‘cored’) interiors that are favored by data. I highlight the if because I remain skeptical that supernova energy couples as strongly as required and assumed (basically 100%). Even assuming favorable feedback, there seemed to be broad (in not unanimous) consensus among the simulators present that at sufficiently low masses, not enough stars would form to produce the requisite energy. Consequently, low mass halos should not have shallow cores, but instead retain their primordial density cusps. Hence clear measurement of a large core in a low mass dwarf galaxy (stellar mass < 1 million solar masses) would be a serious problem. Unfortunately, I’m not clear that we quantified “large,” but something more than a few hundred parsecs should qualify.
\nRadial Orbit for Crater 2: Several speakers highlighted the importance of the recently discovered dwarf satellite Crater 2. This object has a velocity dispersion that is unexpectedly low in \u039bCDM, but was predicted by MOND. The “fix” in \u039bCDM is to imagine that Crater 2 has suffered a large amount of tidal stripping by a close passage of the Milky Way. Hence it is predicted to be on a radial orbit (one that basically just plunges in and out). This can be tested by measuring the proper motion of its stars with Hubble Space Telescope, for which there exists a recently approved program.
\nDM Substructures: As noted above, there must exist numerous low mass dark matter halos in the cold dark matter cosmogony. These may be detected as substructure in the halos of larger galaxies by means of their gravitational lensing even if they do not contain dwarf galaxies. Basically, a lumpy dark matter halo bends light in subtly but detectably different ways from a smooth halo.
\nNo Wide Binaries in UFDs: As a consequence of dynamical friction against the background dark matter, binary stars cannot remain at large separations over a Hubble time: their orbits should decay. In the absence of dark matter, this should not happen (it cannot if there is nowhere for the orbital energy to go, like into dark matter particles). Thus the detection of a population of widely separated binary stars would be problematic. Indeed, Pavel Kroupa argued that the apparent absence of strong dynamical friction already excludes particle dark matter as it is usually imagined.
\nShort dynamical times/common mergers: This is related to dynamical friction. In the hierarchical cosmogony of cold dark matter, mergers of halos (and the galaxies they contain) must be frequent and rapid. Dark matter halos are dynamically sticky, soaking up the orbital energy and angular momentum between colliding galaxies to allow them to stick and merge. Such mergers should go to completion on fairly short timescales (a mere few hundred million years).
\nA few distinctive predictions for MOND were also identified.
\n![\"MOND_whiteboard\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/mond_whiteboard.jpg?resize=700%2C525&ssl=1\")
Tangential Orbit for Crater 2: In contrast to \u039bCDM, we expect that the `feeble giant’ Crater 2 could not survive a close encounter with the Milky Way. Even at its rather large distance of 120 kpc from the Milky Way, it is so feeble that it is not immune from the external field of its giant host. Consequently, we expect that Crater 2 must be on a more nearly circular orbit, and not on a radial orbit as suggested in \u039bCDM. The orbit does not need to be perfectly circular of course, but is should be more tangential than radial.
\nThis provides a nice test that distinguishes between the two theories. Either the orbit of Crater 2 is more radial or more tangential. Bear in mind that Crater 2 already constitutes a problem for \u039bCDM. What we’re discussing here is how to close what is basically a loophole whereby we can excuse an otherwise unanticipated result in \u039bCDM.
\nEFE: The External Field Effect is a unique prediction of MOND that breaks the strong equivalence principle. There is already clear if tentative evidence for the EFE in the dwarf satellite galaxies around Andromeda. There is no equivalent to the EFE in \u039bCDM.
\nI believe the question mark was added on the white board to permit the logical if unlikely possibility that one could write a MOND theory with an undetectably small EFE.
\nPosition of UFDs on RAR: We chose to avoid making the radial acceleration relation (RAR) a focus of the meeting – there was quite enough to talk about as it was – but it certainly came up. The ultrafaint dwarfs sit “too high” on the RAR, an apparent problem for MOND. Indeed, when I first worked on this subject with Joe Wolf, I initially thought this was a fatal problem for MOND.
\nMy initial thought was wrong. This is not a problem for MOND. The RAR applies to systems in dynamical equilibrium. There is a criterion in MOND to check whether this essential condition may be satisfied. Basically all of the ultrafaints flunk this test. There is no reason to think they are in dynamical equilibrium, so no reason to expect that they should be exactly on the RAR.
\nSome advocates of \u039bCDM seemed to think this was a fudge, a lame excuse morally equivalent to the fudges made in \u039bCDM that its critics complain about. This is a false equivalency that reminds me of this cartoon:
\n![\"hqdefault\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/hqdefault.jpg?resize=480%2C360&ssl=1\")
The ultrafaints are a handful of the least-well measured galaxies on the RAR. Before we obsess about these, it is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation for the more numerous, much better measured galaxies that establish the RAR in the first place. MOND does this. \u039bCDM does not. Holding one theory to account for the least reliable of measurements before holding another to account for everything up to that point is like, well, like the cartoon… I could put an NGC number to each of the lines Bugs draws in the sand.
\nLong dynamical times/less common mergers: Unlike \u039bCDM, dynamical friction should be relatively ineffective in MOND. It lacks the large halos of dark matter that act as invisible catchers’ mitts to make galaxies stick and merge. Personally, I do not think this is a great test, because we are a long way from understanding dynamical friction in MOND.
\nNon-evolution with redshift: If the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation and the RAR are indeed the consequence of MOND, then their form is fixed by the theory. Consequently, their slope shouldn’t evolve with time. Conceivably their normalization might (e.g., the value of a0 could in principle evolve). Some recent data for high redshift galaxies place constraints on such evolution, but reports on these data are greatly exaggerated.
\nThese are just a few of the topics discussed at the workshop, and all of those are only a few of the issues that matter to the bigger picture. While the workshop was great in every respect, perhaps the best thing was that it got people from different fields/camps/perspectives talking. That is progress.
\nI am grateful for progress, but I must confess that to me it feels excruciatingly slow. Models of galaxy formation in the context of \u039bCDM have made credible steps forward in addressing some of the phenomenological issues that concern me. Yet they still seem to me to be very far from where they need to be. In particular, there seems to be no engagement with the fundamental question I have posed here before, and that I posed at the beginning of the workshop: Why does MOND get any predictions right?
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/4bkwq-4gg89","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=6128","image":"https://tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/workshop_photo.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1497398400,"rid":"e895s-0s622","summary":"The week of June 5, 2017, we held a workshop on dwarf galaxies and the dark matter problem. The workshop was attended by many leaders in the field \u2013 giants of dwarf galaxy research. It was held on the campus of Case Western Reserve University and supported by the John Templeton Foundation.","tags":["Dark Matter","Galaxy Formation","MOND"],"title":"Dwarf Galaxies on the Shoulders of Giants","updated_at":1789458200,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2017/06/14/dwarf-galaxies-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":1713312000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/tritonstation","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://tritonstation.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tritonstation","status":"active","subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":1789075797,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"It has been twenty years since we coined the phrase NFW halo to describe the cuspy halos that emerge from dark matter simulations of structure formation. Since that time, observations have persistently contradicted this fundamental prediction of the cold dark matter cosmogony. There have, of course, been some theorists who cling to the false hope that somehow it is the data to blame and not a shortcoming of the model.
\nThat this false hope has persisted in some corners for so long is a tribute to the power of ideas over facts and the influence that strident personalities wield over the sort objective evaluation we allegedly value in science. This history is a bit like this skit by Arsenio Hall. Hall is pestered by someone calling, demanding Thelma. Just substitute “cusps” for “Thelma” and that pretty much sums it up.
\nAll during this time, I have never questioned the results of the simulations. While it is a logical possibility that they screwed something up, I don’t think that is likely. Moreover, it is inappropriate to pour derision on one’s scientific colleagues just because you disagree. Such disagreements are part and parcel of the scientific method. We don’t need to be jerks about it.
\nBut some people are jerks about it. There are some – and merely some, certainly not all – theorists who make a habit of pouring scorn on the data for not showing what they want it to show. And that’s what it really boils down to. They’re so sure that their models are right that any disagreement with data must be the fault of the data.
\nThis has been going on so long that in 1996, George Efstathiou was already making light of it in his colleagues, in the form of the Frenk Principle:
\n\n“If the Cold Dark Matter Model does not agree with observations, there must be physical processes, no matter how bizarre or unlikely, that can explain the discrepancy.”
There are even different flavors of the Strong Frenk Principle:
\n\n1: “The physical processes must be the most bizarre and unlikely.”
\n2: “If we are incapable of finding any physical processes to explain the discrepancy between CDM models and observations, then observations are wrong.”
In the late ’90s, blame was frequently placed on beam smearing. The resolution of 21 cm data cubes at that time was typically 13 to 30 arcseconds, which made it challenging to resolve the shape of some rotation curves. Some but not all. Nevertheless, beam smearing became the default excuse to pretend the observations were wrong.
\nThis persisted for a number of years, until we obtained better data – long slit optical spectra with 1 or 2 arcsecond resolution. These data did show up a few cases where beam smearing had been a legitimate concern. It also confirmed the rotation curves of many other galaxies where it had not been.
\nSo they made up a different systematic error. Beam smearing was no longer an issue, but longslit data only gave a slice along the major axis, not the whole velocity field. So it was imagined that we observers had placed the slits in the wrong place, thereby missing the signature of the cusps.
\nThis was obviously wrong from the start. It boiled down to an assertion that Vera Rubin didn’t know how to measure rotation curves. If that were true, we wouldn’t have dark matter in the first place. The real lesson of this episode was to never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. People believed one thing about the data quality when it agreed with their preconceptions (rotation curves prove dark matter!) and another when it didn’t (rotation curves don’t constrain cusps!)
\n![\"Whatwesaytotheorists\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/whatwesaytotheorists.png?resize=355%2C496&ssl=1\")
So, back to the telescope. Now we obtained 2D velocity fields at optical resolution (a few arcseconds). When you do this, there is no where for a cusp to hide. Such a dense concentration makes a pronounced mark on the velocity field.
\n![\"NFWISOvelocityfield\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/nfwisovelocityfield.jpeg?resize=700%2C350&ssl=1\")
To give a real world example (O’Neil et. al 2000; yes, we could already do this in the previous millennium), here is a galaxy with a cusp and one without:
\n![\"UGC12687UGC12695vfields\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ugc12687ugc12695vfields.png?resize=700%2C330&ssl=1\")
It is easy to see the signature of a cusp in a 2D velocity field. You can’t miss it. It stands out like a sore thumb.
\nThe absence of cusps is typical of dwarf and low surface brightness galaxies. In the vast majority of these, we see approximately solid body rotation, as in UGC 12695. This is incredibly reproducible. See, for example, the case of UGC 4325 (Fig. 3 of Bosma 2004), where six independent observations employing three distinct observational techniques all obtain the same result.
\nThere are cases where we do see a cusp. These are inevitably associated with a dense concentration of stars, like a bulge component. There is no need to invoke dark matter cusps when the luminous matter makes the same prediction. Worse, it becomes ambiguous: you can certainly fit a cuspy halo by reducing the fractional contribution of the stars. But this only succeeds by having the dark matter mimic the light distribution. Maybe such galaxies do have cuspy halos, but the data do not require it.
\nAll this was settled a decade ago. Most of the field has moved on, with many theorists trying to simulate the effects of baryonic feedback. An emerging consensus is that such feedback can transform cusps into cores on scales that matter to real galaxies. The problem then moves to finding observational tests of feedback: does it work in the real universe as it must do in the simulations in order to get the “right” result?
\nNot everyone has kept up with the times. A recent preprint tries to spin the story that non-circular motions make it hard to obtain the true circular velocity curve, and therefore we can still get away with cusps. Like all good misinformation, there is a grain of truth to this. It can indeed be challenging to get the precisely correct 1D rotation curve V(R) in a way that properly accounts for non-circular motions. Challenging but not impossible. Some of the most intense arguments I’ve had have been over how to do this right. But these were arguments among perfectionists about details. We agreed on the basic result.
\n![\"arsenio\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/arsenio.png?resize=640%2C400&ssl=1\")
High quality data paint a clear and compelling picture. The data show an incredible amount of order in the form of Renzo’s rule, the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, and the Radial Acceleration Relation. Such order cannot emerge from a series of systematic errors. Models that fail to reproduce these observed relations can be immediately dismissed as incorrect.
\nThe high degree of order in the data has been known for decades, and yet many modeling papers simply ignore these inconvenient facts. Perhaps the authors of such papers are simply unaware of them. Worse, some seem to be fooling themselves through the liberal application of the Frenk’s Principle. This places a notional belief system (dark matter halos must have cusps) above observational reality. This attitude has more in common with religious faith than with the scientific method.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/87h3p-z8g14","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=6404","image":"https://tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/army.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1499385600,"rid":"sepqn-ym302","summary":"It has been twenty years since we coined the phrase NFW halo to describe the cuspy halos that emerge from dark matter simulations of structure formation. Since that time, observations have persistently contradicted this fundamental prediction of the cold dark matter cosmogony.","tags":["Dark Matter","Rotation Curves"],"title":"Ain't no cusps here","updated_at":1789458192,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2017/07/07/aint-no-cusps-here/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":1713312000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/tritonstation","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://tritonstation.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tritonstation","status":"active","subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":1789075797,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"I have not posted here in a while. This is mostly due to the fact that I have a job that is both engaging and demanding. I started this blog as a way to blow off steam, but I realized this mostly meant ranting about those fools at the academy! of whom there are indeed plenty. These are reality based rants, but I’ve got better things to do.
\nAs it happens, I’ve come down with a bug that keeps me at home but leaves just enough energy to read and type, but little else. This is an excellent recipe for inciting a rant. Reading the Washington Post article on delayed gratification in children brings it on.
\nIt is not really the article that gets me, let alone the scholarly paper on which it is based. I have not read the latter, and have no intention of doing so. I hope its author has thought through the interpretation better than is implied by what I see in the WaPo article. That is easy for me to believe; my own experience is that what academics say to the press has little to do with what eventually appears in the press – sometimes even inverting its meaning outright. (At one point I was quoted as saying that dark matter experimentalists should give up, when what I had said was that it was important to pursue these experiments to their logical conclusion, but that we also needed to think about what would constitute a logical conclusion if dark matter remains undetected.)
\nSo I am at pains to say that my ire is not directed at the published academic article. In this case it isn’t even directed at the article in the WaPo, regardless of whether it is a fair representation of the academic work or not. My ire is directed entirely at the interpretation of a single graph, which I am going to eviscerate.
\nThe graph in question shows the delay time measured in psychology experiments over the years. It is an attempt to measure self-control in children. When presented with a marshmallow but told they may have two marshmallows if they wait for it, how long can they hold out? This delayed gratification is thought to be a measure of self-control that correlates positively with all manners of subsequent development. Which may indeed be true. But what can we learn from this particular graph?
\n![\"marshmallow_test-1\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/marshmallow_test-1.jpg?resize=700%2C568&ssl=1\")
The graph plots the time delay measured from different experiments against the date of the experiment. Every point (plotted as a marshmallow – cute! I don’t object to that) represents an average over many children tested at that time. Apparently they have been “corrected” to account for the age of the children (one gets better at delayed gratification as one matures) which is certainly necessary, but it also raises a flag. How was the correction made? Such details can matter.
\nHowever, my primary concern is more basic. Do the data, as shown, actually demonstrate a trend?
\nTo answer this question for yourself, the first thing you have to be able to do is mentally remove the line. That big black bold line that so nicely connects the dots. Perhaps it is a legitimate statistical fit of some sort. Or perhaps it is boldface to [mis]guide the eye. Doesn’t matter. Ignore it. Look at the data.
\nThe first thing I notice about the data are the outliers – in this case, 3 points at very high delay times. These do not follow the advertised trend, or any trend. Indeed, they seem in no way related to the other data. It is as if a different experiment had been conducted.
\nWhen confronted with outlying data, one has a couple of choices. If we accept that these data are correct and from the same experiment, then there is no trend: the time of delayed gratification could be pretty much anything from a minute to half an hour. However, the rest of the data do clump together, so the other option is that these outliers are not really representing the same thing as the rest of the data, and should be ignored, or at least treated with less weight.
\nThe outliers may be the most striking part of the data set, but they are usually the least important. There are all sorts of statistical measures by which to deal with them. I do not know which, if any, have been applied. There are no error bars, no boxes representing quartiles or some other percentage spanned by the data each point represents. Just marshmallows. Now I’m a little grumpy about the cutesy marshmallows. All marshmallows are portrayed as equal, but are some marshmallows more equal than others? This graph provides no information on this critical point.
\nIn the absence of any knowledge about the accuracy of each marshmallow, one is forced to use one’s brain. This is called judgement. This can be good or bad. It is possible to train the brain to be a good judge of these things – a skill that seems to be in decline these days.
\nWhat I see in the data are several clumps of points (disregarding the outliers). In the past decade there are over a dozen points all clumped together around an average of 8 minutes. That seems like a pretty consistent measure of the delayed gratification of the current generation of children.
\nBefore 2007, the data are more sparse. There are a half a dozen points on either side of 1997. These have a similar average of 7 or 8 minutes.
\nBefore that there are very little data. What there is goes back to the sixties. One could choose to see that as two clumps of three points, or one clump of six points. If one does the latter, the mean is around 5 minutes. So we had a “trend” of 5 minutes circa 1970, 7 minutes circa 1997, and 8 minutes circa 2010. That is an increase over time, but it is also a tiny trend – much less persuasive than the heavy solid line in the graph implies.
\nIf we treat the two clumps of three separately – as I think we should, since they sit well apart from each other – then we have to choose which to believe. They aren’t consistent. The delay time in 1968 looks to have an average of two minutes; in 1970 it looks to be 8 minutes. So which is it?
\nAccording to the line in the graph, we should believe the 1968 data and not the 1970 data. That is, the 1968 data fall nicely on the line, while the 1970 data fall well off it. In percentage terms, the 1970 data are as far from the trend as the highest 2010 point that we rejected as an outlier.
\nWhen fitting a line, the slope of the line can be strongly influence by the points at its ends. In this case, the earliest and the latest data. The latest data seem pretty consistent, but the earliest data are split. So the slope depends entirely on which clump of three early points you choose to believe.
\nIf we choose to believe the 1970 clump, then the “trend” becomes 8 minutes in 1970, 7 minutes in 1997, 8 minutes in 2010. Which is to say, no trend at all. Try disregarding the first three (1968) points and draw your own line on this graph. Without them, it is pretty flat. In the absence of error bars and credible statistics, I would conclude that there is no meaningful trend present in the data at all. Maybe a formal fit gives a non-zero slope, but I find it hard to believe it is\u00a0meaningfully non-zero.
\nNone of this happens in a vacuum. Lets step back and apply some external knowledge. Have people changed over the 5 decades of my life?
\nThe contention of the WaPo article is that they have. Specifically, contrary to the perception that iPhones and video games have created a generation with a cripplingly short attention span (congrats if you made it this far!), in fact the data show the opposite. The ability of children to delay gratification has improved over the time these experiments have been conducted.
\nWhat does the claimed trend imply? If we take it literally, then extrapolating back in time, the delay time goes to zero around 1917. People in the past must have been completely incapable of delaying gratification for even an instant. This was a power our species only developed in the past century.
\nI hope that sounds implausible. If there is no trend, which is what the data actually show, then children a half century ago were much the same as children a generation ago are much the same as the children of today. So the more conservative interpretation of the graph would be that human nature is rather invariant, at least as indicated by the measure of delayed gratification in children.
\nSadly, null results are dull. There well may be a published study reporting no trend, but it doesn’t get picked up by the Washington Post. Imagine the headline: “Children today are much the same as they’ve always been!” Who’s gonna click on that? In this fashion, even reputable news sources contribute to the scourge of misleading science and fake news that currently pollutes our public discourse.
\n![\"ghostbusters-columbia\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ghostbusters-columbia.jpg?resize=700%2C293&ssl=1\")
This sort of over-interpretation of weak trends is rife in many fields. My own, for example. This is why I’m good at spotting them. Fortunately, screwing up in Astronomy seldom threatens life and limb.
\nThen there is Medicine. My mother was a medical librarian; I occasionally browsed their journals when waiting for her at work. Graphs for the efficacy of treatments that looked like the marshmallow graph were very common. Which is to say, no effect was in evidence, but it was often portrayed as a positive trend. They seem to be getting better lately (which is to say, at some point in the not distant past some medical researchers were exposed to basic statistics), but there is an obvious pressure to provide a treatment, even if the effect of the available course of treatment is tiny. Couple that to the aggressive marketing of drugs in the US, and it would not surprise me if many drugs have been prescribed based on efficacy trends weaker than seen in the marshmallow graph. See! There is a line with a positive slope! It must be doing some good!
\nAnother problem with data interpretation is in the corrections applied. In the case of marshmallows,\u00a0one must correct for the age of the subject: an eight year old can usually hold out longer than a toddler. No doubt there are other corrections. The way these are usually made is to fit some sort of function to whatever trend is seen with age in a particular experiment. While that trend may be real, it also has scatter (I’ve known eight year olds who couldn’t out wait a toddler), which makes it dodgy to apply. Do all experiments see the same trend? It is safe to apply the same correction to all of them? Worse, it is often necessary to extrapolate these corrections beyond where they are constrained by data. This is known to be dangerous, as the correction can become overlarge upon extrapolation.
\nIt would not surprise me if the abnormally low points around 1968 were over-corrected in some way. But then, it was the sixties. Children may have not changed much since then, but the practice of psychology certainly has. Lets consider the implications that has for comparing 1968 data to 2017 data.
\nThe sixties were a good time for psychological research. The field had grown enormously since the time of Freud and was widely respected. However, this was also the time when many experimental psychologists thought psychotropic drugs were a good idea. Influential people praised the virtues of LSD.
\nMy father was a grad student in psychology in the sixties. He worked with swans. One group of hatchlings imprinted on him. When they grew up, they thought they should mate with people – that’s what their mom looked like, after all. So they’d and make aggressive displays towards any person (they could not distinguish human gender) who ventured too close.
\nHe related the anecdote of a colleague who became interested in the effect of LSD on animals. The field was so respected at the time that this chap was able to talk the local zoo into letting him inject an elephant with LSD. What could go wrong?
\nPerhaps you’ve heard the expression “That would have killed a horse! Fortunately, you’re not a horse.” Well, the fellow in question figured elephants were a lot bigger than people. So he scaled up the dose by the ratio of body mass. Not, say, the ratio of brain size, or whatever aspect of the metabolism deals with LSD.
\nThat’s enough LSD to kill an elephant.
\nSad as that was for the elephant, who is reputed to have been struck dead pretty much instantly – no tripping rampage preceded its demise – my point here is that these were the same people conducting the experiments in 1968. Standards were a little different. The difference seen in the graph may have more to do with differences in the field than with differences in the subjects.
\nThat is not to say we should simply disregard old data. The date on which an observation is made has no bearing on its reliability. The practice of the field at that time does.
\nThe 1968 delay times are absurdly low. All three are under four minutes. Such low delay times are not reproduced in any of the subsequent experiments. They would be more credible if the same result were even occasionally reproduced. It ain’t.
\nAnother way to look at this is that there should be a comparable number of outliers on either side of the correct trend. That isn’t necessarily true – sometimes systematic errors push in a single direction – but in the absence of knowledge of such effects, one would expect outliers on both the high side and the low side.
\nIn the marshmallow graph, with the trend as drawn, there are lots of outliers on the high side. There are none on the low side. [By outlier, I mean points well away from the trend, not just scattered a little to one side or the other.]
\nIf instead we draw a flat line at 7 or 8 minutes, then there are three outliers on both sides. The three very high points, and the three very low points, which happen to occur around 1968. It is entirely because the three outliers on the low side happen at the earliest time that we get even the hint of a trend. Spread them out, and they would immediately be dismissed as outliers – which is probably what they are. Without them, there is no significant trend. This would be\u00a0the more conservative interpretation of the marshmallow graph.
\nPerhaps those kids in 1968 were different in other ways. The experiments were presumably conducted in psychology departments on university campuses in the late sixties. It was OK to smoke inside back then, and not everybody restricted themselves to tobacco in those days. Who knows how much second hand marijuana smoke was inhaled just to getting to the test site? I jest, but the 1968 numbers might just measure the impact on delayed gratification when the subject gets the munchies.
\n![\"ancient-aliens\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ancient-aliens.jpg?resize=223%2C223&ssl=1\")
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/qbkmp-0ze20","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=6685","image":"https://tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/8631e895433bc3d1fa87e3d857fc7500.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1506124800,"rid":"0035s-ekx10","summary":"I have not posted here in a while. This is mostly due to the fact that I have a job that is both engaging and demanding. I started this blog as a way to blow off steam, but I realized this mostly meant ranting about those fools at the academy!","tags":["Data Interpretation","Sociology"],"title":"The kids are all right, but they can't interpret a graph","updated_at":1789458188,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2017/09/23/the-kids-are-all-right-but-they-cant-interpret-a-graph/","version":"v1"}}],"items":[{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02czsnj07","name":"Deakin University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Kingsley","given":"Danny","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"b56ef314-34f7-4c7f-b0e2-d0bf13bfe83b","created":1673568000,"current_feed_url":"https://upstream.force11.org/atom/","description":"The community blog for all things Open Research.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.54900/upstream","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/b56ef314-34f7-4c7f-b0e2-d0bf13bfe83b/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://upstream.force11.org/atom-complete/","filter":null,"generator":"Ghost","home_page_url":"https://upstream.force11.org","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.54900","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"upstream","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"Upstream","updated":1789456994,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Upstream","blog_slug":"upstream","content_html":"
This course, called Open as Antidote \u2013 addressing the big challenges facing science, was part of the 2026 FORCE11 Scholarly Communication Institute which ran with the theme of 'FSCI2026: Critical Thinking and evolving open scholarship in the era of AI'
These blog posts are a series of 'explainer' pre-reading to start participants thinking about the issues the course considered in relation to the general decline of scholarly publishing. The blog posts in this series considered the problem of questionable research practices, the mechanisms to manage these through corrections and retractions, the problem of university rankings and the uneasy nexus between Open and AI. They finish with some suggestions of where we go from here.
Originally written 28 July 2026.
Contrary to the nomenclature, 'authorship' of a research article does not actually mean that all listed authors actually wrote the article, rather it is a list of people who made a contribution to the work. That said, the term does have a very specific meaning, set down in 1988 by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors which lists four criteria for authorship including a substantial contribution, drafting and reviewing, final approval and agreement to be accountable for the content. That last criteria refers to the understanding that credit in research goes hand in hand with responsibility.
Attributing 'authorship' correctly can be complex, leading to guides such as this one from the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research notes in its guide for authorship that it must be an honest reflection of contribution to research, assigned fairly, and consistently with established disciplinary practice and communicated clearly and transparently between contributors to the research. The guide also specifically states that authorship should not be 'gift' or 'guest' authorship.
Gift or guest authorship is where a person is listed as an author without having made any substantive contribution to the work. This can manifest in multiple ways. A 2023 study surveyed over 1300 European PhD students across multiple countries and disciplines. A significant proportion (approximately three in 10) reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to \"a person in power\". Of those people who had granted guest authorship, half had been told to do so by the person involved. The understanding of what constituted authorship appeared to vary across the students. In the same year, a study of Australian early career researchers identified dissatisfaction, bullying and 'questionable research practices'. One of the practices described was pressure to include or exclude authors on papers.
A different mechanism for institutions to increase the number of papers they can claim is the practice of 'multi-affiliation'. A 2023 paper noting this is a growing problem for scientific integrity found that in some cases authors were listing 20 or 30 affiliations and called for \"careful scrutiny of the actual scientific contributions made by these authors and the importance of safeguarding the integrity of scientific output and networks\". One example is a Saudi institution that was paying foreign researchers up to \u20ac70,000 a year to lie about their place of employment, in order to artificially elevate Saudi institutions in international academic rankings.
Hyper-prolific authors are another manifestation of this problem. A 2018 study considered authors who has published more than 72 papers in any one calendar year between 2000 and 2016. After eliminating physics authors (physics papers often include upwards of 1000 members and famously in one case had over 5000 authors), the researchers were able to identify a distinct pattern of increased number of people who were publishing at this high rate over time. The paper suggests \"loose definitions of authorship, and an unfortunate tendency to reduce assessments to counting papers, muddy how credit is assigned\" with authorship. This may be a generous take on the situation. A 2023 article talked about a Spanish researcher publishing a paper every second day \u2013 many outside his area of speciality. The volume is so high \"he doesn't have time to read them\" prior to submission.
Given authorship on a paper is used to measure success or contribution for promotion there is incentive to have one's name on as many papers as possible. This opens up a commercial market. The idea of authorship for sale is not new. Indeed, in August 2023, Retraction Watch reported on the publisher Frontiers retracting nearly 40 papers across multiple journals linked to \"the unethical practice of buying or selling authorship on research papers\", reported in a press release on the company site.
Sometimes simply having a publishing association with people who have been suspected of buying or selling authorship can be problematic for authors. One example is an Australian author was involved in retractions of papers that had been coauthored with international authors who had been identified as advertising authorship for sale. In these cases, the papers had added several authors \"post-acceptance with claims of their significant contribution to the research\". In some cases this makes financial sense \u2013 if the recompensation for a paper by an institution is higher than the cost of buying the authorship, for example.
A different issue is to give a paper credibility by using the name of a prominent author in the author list without them knowing. This issue can cause problems for the unsuspecting researcher because fraudulent works can automatically be added to a researcher's profile, which could damage a researcher's career if not corrected. A different twist on problematic authorship is the invention of a fictional author at a prestigious university to increase the chances of a paper being accepted.
While authorship of publications is the central currency of most research assessment, citations of an author's work add in to other metrics, such as an author's 'h-index'. Journals also benefit from citations in terms of their Journal Impact Factor. University rankings also consider issues such as citations. Citations therefore have 'value' to authors, journals and universities and there are multiple ways these can be manipulated.
Citation cartels are becoming more prevalent, for example citation cartels in medical and dental journals where journals agreed to cite each other's publications to boost their own impact factors. The problems with this practice include the distortion of the impact factors of participating journals and undermining the integrity of the scientific process. Within the research community there are examples of citation manipulation. For example groups of mathematicians at institutions in China, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere have been artificially boosting their colleagues' citation counts by churning out low-quality papers that repeatedly reference their work. This means their universities apparently produce a greater number of highly cited maths papers each year than universities with a strong track record in the field.
Like the authorship issue, there is a market in citations. One study found a company that was offering 50 citations for USD300 or 100 citations for USD500. A particularly famous example of this is Larry the cat who was created in response to an advertisement from a paper mill offering to boost the buyer's citation count and h-index. The issue of coercive citation requests has been identified as an underexplored area of concern amongst journal authors, reviewer and editors.
Citations have also been inserted into the metadata about a work. This technique was uncovered when a computer scientist noted a large discrepancy between the citations in Google Scholar and Altmetrics. The former text mines PDFs, but Altmetrics uses CrossRef, a repository for unique identifiers for scholarly metadata. The references are inserted at some point into metadata files that are submitted to CrossRef and automatically ingested (metadata files can be submitted anytime after an article is published).
It should be noted that citation manipulation can backfire, with journals losing their impact factor for suspected citation manipulation. In 2024 seventeen journals lost their impact factor, and in 2025 twenty journals were affected.
Identify fraud can extend beyond people. In 2024 the Liverpool University Press write in two blogs about an issue they were managing where their website had been duplicated in something called 'brandjacking'. The duplicate site offers authors the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee. The press published both a description of the challenge they were facing as well as sharing their investigations and work they had to do to counter this. Another manifestation of this issue is a journal 'impersonation'. From June 2025, the Cambridge Law Journal has had to indicate on their website that they do not work with a list of organisations and that: \"Anyone contacted by the following organisations claiming that they offer publication in CLJ should be aware that we do not work with these companies\".
An alternate approach is to purchase a small legitimate journal from a reputable publisher and then turn it into a predatory, low-quality publication. A news report last year identified 36 journal titles where this had occurred. After the acquisition, the journals introduce or raise article processing charges and publish a much higher number of papers. These journals have been delisted from indexing databases such as Scopus and Web of Science which is likely one of the attractors to the buyers and publishing authors in the first place.
The above does not paint a very positive picture. It does not even encompass the full gamut of what is described as 'questionable research practices'. Consider the proliferation of fake peer reviews \u2013 in one instance in 2017 Springer retracted 107 papers from a single journal because they had been accepted with fake peer reviews.
It is not surprising that we are seeing headlines like There's far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit (August 2023), Why research fraud is getting worse (November 2023) and Why scientific fraud is suddenly everywhere (May 2024).
Originally written 28 July 2026.
What happens if something gets published by mistake? Is there a process to manage this? Yes
A core practice of publication is the management of debate and correction after publication. If the paper contains flaws that need to be addressed there is a process described by the Council of Publication Ethics for Expressions of Concern to be raised and the work can be corrected. If the concerns are serious the paper might need to be retracted. This process is considered to be an \"important element of the foundation of trust that distinguishes scholarly communications from other publication genres\".
Over the past few years, retractions have been on the increase. In December 2023 Nature reported that more than 10,000 research papers were retracted in that year. This was a record, noting that in that case the bulk of the retractions related to journals owned by the disgraced publisher Hindawi.
The following year a news report asked why biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years. Concerningly two thirds of the papers uncovered in the study being reported were withdrawn for reasons related to research misconduct. The study observed an increase in prevalence in Europe over the 20 years studied, with a possible reason for this that detection tools are becoming more effective. Regardless, the length of time the study covered does indicate this is not a new problem.
But what actually happens if a paper is retracted? Unfortunately, in many cases a retracted paper remains in circulation in some form. For example, one study considered 441 retracted papers in public health that had 2841 records across all distributors. The study found that less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all the resources they were available and that no retraction notices met all the criteria for a retraction. This means the majority of these retracted papers remain 'in the wild' and retracted papers continue to be cited.
Once cited, retracted papers perpetuate the problem. A study by a company that provides technology solutions for research integrity found that in the second quarter of 2025 9,445 articles contained references to retracted papers, stating the industry average retraction citation rate was 1.34%. There are also challenges with the period of time between publication and retraction, and delayed retractions enable flawed findings to distort secondary research. This means that the methodological or ethical flaws of these papers remain in the system. Equally journalists who report on research findings are also susceptible, with news coverage of retracted research focusing predominantly on high interest topics like COVID19, gender identity and controversial scientific claims.
Retractions are now such a problem that in some cases funding bodies are starting to crack down. One example is applicants to the Indian Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) Advanced Research Grants who will be obliged to disclose any retractions in the past five years and the reasons why these journal papers were removed from publication.
This lack of consistency on how to manage these issues has resulted in a Recommended Practice on the communication of retractions, removals, and expressions of concern from NISO. An article about the Recommended Practice notes: \"Consistent practice across the community is key to ensuring that retracted research is no longer shared and relied upon in research\". Some recommendations are obvious \u2013 including adding the word 'RETRACTED' to the title of the paper in all versions. But others point to the complexity, including the need to contact all other versions of the work such as preprints and versions in institutional repositories to inform them of the retraction status.
In all this is an expensive process - opening up questions about who pays.
In 2024 the Scholarly Kitchen asked 'Should Publishers Invoice Authors for Retraction Costs?', arguing that \"retractions represent a significant loss of time and effort invested by both researchers and peer reviewers\". The piece explores the accountability of different players in the publishing process and asks whether we could devise a system to hold all parties financially accountable.
At least one publisher has considered this issue, with the Institute of Physics pledging to donate authors fees from retracted papers to a publishing charity, Research4Life. The reasoning is that the publisher cannot refund the money in the instance the paper was retracted because it was from a papermill. They note that the article processing charges of retracted papers should not be kept by publishers because this would hinder incentives to correct the record.
We are living in an environment where trust in research and facts is under pressure. A 2025 event noted that research is facing major integrity challenges, with some of the prevailing incentives in the sector presenting \"a global systemic problem that requires a global systemic solution\". Research misconduct cases are increasing, with integrity sleuths uncovering instances of questionable research practices such as data manipulation. This is not restricted to smaller institutions, high profile researchers such as senior Harvard cancer researchers have been caught out. In 2023 the president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, resigned after an investigation found several of the papers he had authored contained manipulated data.
There have been attempts to address these questions of integrity with many countries establishing national offices including Canada, Japan, China and the UK. In Australia there have long been calls to also establish a national body to address research integrity, but to date, responsibility for the management of research integrity issues have remined in-house, with institutions required to appoint research integrity advisors and carry out investigations themselves. This approach has multiple challenges, not least the conflict of interest of an institution being responsible for managing an issue that could be reputationally problematic. For example, increased reporting of publication misconducts by an institution is associated with lower Trust Scores in the research institution involved.
The effectiveness of research integrity roles in institutions is under question. In almost two thirds of the 99 Australian institutions considered in one study had no information about their research integrity advisors on their websites, and shockingly 'some [research integrity advisors] only realised they had been appointed advisors when they were contacted by the census team'.
In summary, while there is a formal process for scholarly publishing to 'self-correct', in practice this is not working as intended. There is a lot of work to be done.
Originally written by 29 July 2026.
This blog post considers some of the reasons why we are in the situation we are.
It is reasonably straightforward to draw a causal line between questionable research practices and research assessment processes. Individuals are under pressure to publish in specific journals in order to gain promotion or grant funding. This graphic is an excellent description of the drivers for academics' need to publish in prestigious journals. It shows the common drivers for academic and universities of grants but identifies another driver in the landscape which is highly problematic and extremely influential \u2013 university rankings.
Despite being a 'global confidence trick', over the past couple of decades university rankings have increased their prominence worldwide. A good book that considers the impact of university rankings is Breaking Ranks \u2013 How the Rankings Industry Rules Higher Education and What to do about it which describes the extent to which a commercial product such as the US News & World Report has on the operation and strategy of the university landscape in the US. (In an act of deliberate self-promotion, here is a link to my review of the book).
Amongst the many criticisms of university rankings is their reliance on a narrow and incomplete sets of data. Three bibliometric products dominate the research assessment space. As an example, Web of Science and InCites (both Clarivate products) and SciVal (an Elsevier product) \u2013 collectively are used for the following research assessment processes: Journal Impact Factor, Times Higher Education Rankings, QS Rankings, ARWU rankings, Excellence in Research for Australia (2023), Research Excellence Framework (2021), amongst others. But these three products don't align well, with significant differences contributing to \"drastic changes in rank positions of universities, which are most prevalent for non-English-speaking universities and those outside the top positions in international university rankings\", according to one 2020 comparison.
And it is not just differences between these databases that are problematic, it is their incomplete coverage. A study from 2025 considered the 'long tail' of smaller and independent publishers. The study covered the period from 1980\u20132021 and retrieved 32% more articles from Dimensions compared to the 'more selective' WoS. There was a disciplinary bias - with the Dimensions' data including small publishers in the Social Sciences and the Arts and Humanities and picking up publications outside of English-speaking countries and/or those located in northwestern Europe. The authors noted that \"the rest of the world [is] relatively independent of the oligopoly.\"
This exclusion of smaller journals was also found in a substantial 2023 analysis of 25,671 journals that use Open Journal Systems as their publishing platform found that most were missing from the main commercial bibliographic databases. Between them these journals represented 5.8 million items; from 136 countries, with 79.9% in the Global South. The majority (84.2%) charge neither reader nor author, following the diamond open access model. \"For all their geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, 1.2% are indexed in the Web of Science and 5.7% in Scopus\". The authors point out that \"it is not that this literature is invisible, as 88% of it is found in Google Scholar due to its deliberate efforts to be globally inclusive\". They call for this to be an opportunity to decolonise knowledge distribution.
This is a serious issue for researchers outside the English speaking and northwestern Europe, with calls to rethink global indexing to include Middle East and North African (MENA) journals. This argument notes the technical (and resource hungry) barriers to inclusion in indexing platforms like Scopus or Web of Science and bemoans the privileging of English language content - a major challenge for areas such as public health or education policy where context matters.
It is this focus on such a small subset of all research globally that has surfaced arguments that university rankings entrench privilege. One example is the 2023 report from United Nations University International Institute for Global Health: World-class Universities? Interrogating the Biases and Coloniality of Global University Rankings . As the editor of The Lancet argues in an editorial \"Offline: The silencing of the South\": \"If we truly believe in equity, we need to resist and repudiate the current discriminatory and exclusionary system of university rankings.\" University Rankings are \"a system that stains the reputation of scholarship.\"
These are not new sentiments. Pleas that universities should \"concentrate on what matters \u2013 helping the majority of students earn credentials for sustainable living and employment, rather than ensuring that your institution matches criteria established by different rankings\" appeared in a 2017 argument that most universities should quit the rankings game.
Rhodes University has taken a principled stand not to participate in university ranking systems, citing their 'neocolonial nature' and their 'flawed methodologies', joining Harvard and Yale Law Schools.
Rhodes is not alone in rejecting university rankings. Utrecht University made the deliberate decision not to submit data to the Times Higher Education World University Ranking in 2024. Their stated reason was \"rankings put too much emphasis on comparison and mutual competition, while we want to focus on collaboration and Open Science\". Cheers to that.
I admit to some incredulity that the academic community, whose entire raison d'etre (in theory) is to question, test, and provide evidence to support claims, seem to have not only swallowed the fairy dust of rankings but actively changed strategy and activities to serve them. This is particularly acute writing from Australia, where the Chancellor of the University of Adelaide noted the decision to merge two universities in South Australia was because the merger \"will allow us to \u2026 achieve recognition among the world's top 100 universities on an ongoing basis\".
Perhaps the fundamental problem with university rankings (apart from the above and that their methods are not transparent, change over time and would never pass an ethics committee), is best put by the argument that there simply is no meaningful relationship between a ranking, on the one hand, and what a university is and does in comparison to others, on the other.
Originally written 29 July 2026.
Something I am working on with my institution (and in Australia) is discussion around the uneasy nexus between AI and Open. Uneasy indeed, I would argue it is possible to consider AI a parasite on Open. Those are harsh words, perhaps better expressed by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) in a report as the \"Uneasy interdependence of AI and Open Science\". The report that states \"open resources are the raw materials for training AI models and for their application\". The report identifies three areas of particular concern about this \u2013 lack of attribution, misinformation and aggressive bots.
This last issue relates to the need to provide large amounts of information to Large Language Models on which to train. Unless the organisation developing a tool can pay for access to paywalled material, the obvious choice of training material is open resources. This has serious implications for any infrastructure that is hosting open information.
A report on Sustaining the Commons in the AI Economy noted \"AI labs bring insatiable demand for training data...bots [are] overwhelming servers and inflating costs...collections stewards have deployed [d]efensive access restrictions [that] risk undermining the openness they were designed to protect\", prompting an infrastructure manager to note that 'the strain on infrastructure that provides the training data is considerable \u2026 which is not reimbursed by the bot owners creating the load'.
The strain on infrastructure that provides the training data is considerable and there is insufficient reciprocity. The extra cost to open infrastructure of managing bot attacks and other overwhelming use is unsustainable, particularly considering that infrastructure is often community funded. This is creating frustration for open database managers: \"Our database capacity is just being ruined every time they initiate a fresh scrape and our tech team has to scramble, taking radical measures, to keep the platform up.\" COAR have released a resource for repository managers on Dealing with Bots which addresses the aligned problems of overwhelming traffic from badly behaved bots alongside countermeasures adversely affecting or impeding welcome traffic.
It is not just fending off bots that are trying to access the material in repositories, there is also a problem with the supply of material to them. Preprint servers are increasing their moderation in response to AI generated content and junk science which makes it more difficult for genuine research to be published and \"fundamentally goes against the spirit of open science and the commitment to advancing inclusive, rapid knowledge sharing that is at the heart of preprints' value for both science and society\".
AI activity is also causing individuals and organisations to reconsider making work open. Because bots are routinely mining open access databases and, in some cases, analysing and combining data sets to create new results and papers there is concern in the academic community about the potential extraction of sensitive information such as patient information. Some open databases such as OpenAlex and Europe PMC are working on mediated access to their data sets.
In the UK, in response to computer hacking AI models like Mythos, the National Health Service has made the decision to make all of its source code repositories private by default \"given rapid advancements in AI models capable of large-scale code ingestion, inference and reasoning\". This is an override of NHS rule that all software that has been created with public money should be publicly available.
This is affecting non-academic and research publication as well. The Internet Archive has been in operating for 30 years. Because the material it captures is made openly available and therefore can be scraped, commercial organisations like news publishers (for example The Guardian, the New York Times and others) are blocking the archive's access to their pages. The situation is so problematic that this is causing calls that AI's biggest casualty could be history itself. Being blocked from gathering information is not the only threat to the Wayback Machine. Players in the AI space are buying up hard drives, causing a shortage in the types of large hard drives that the Internet Archive needs to host the Wayback Machine. Apparently these drives are either out of stock or considerably more expensive.
It is not just newspaper publishers who are closing ranks. AI also opens up new markets for publishers, to on sell subscription material to the companies. Over the past few years there has been a series of publishers removing abstracts from open bibliodatabases such as OpenAlex. Springer Nature 's abstracts were removed in November 2022. By November 2024 Elsevier were also removing abstracts. This has resulted in a sudden collapse from approximately 80% abstract coverage to about 20-35% for two of the largest publishers. This will have a significant impact on LLM assisted search. To give an indication of how deeply this will hit, an Elsevier study released in November last year that considered the 'Researcher of the Future' said that researchers currently use AI tools to find and summarise the latest research (61%). Elsevier is almost working against itself by removing its own abstracts from search LLMs that are relying on open abstracts.
Then on the other hand - the fact that AI is supercharging the production of paper mill papers, and overwhelming the publishing infrastructure means that research integrity needs open more than ever - the links between open research practice and research integrity are strong.
So overall we have a situation where a combination of AI use and the AI companies themselves is causing multiple problems for open and not providing many (if any) solutions. Open needs to be mainstreamed and in doing so we need to fund it properly. Imagine if we redirected the millions we spend on commercial organisations back into the open ecosystem\u2026..
Originally written 30 July 2026.
The course has taken a very wide perspective in considering the scholarly publishing ecosystem and the challenges it is facing, incorporating the incentives of the reward system, and the impact of artificial intelligence. A recent question posed on the Scholarly Kitchen about the use of AI in authoring papers was 'is it right to use AI to write papers when publishing papers are used as a barometer of researcher competency, tenure and promotion?' I would argue this is the wrong question. The more pertinent question is \"Is it right that publishing papers is used as the primary assessment tool of researchers?\".
It is time to rethink this whole endeavour.
Considering all of the issues covered by the course, it seems to be a bleak time for the scientific enterprise. And the focus has deliberately steered away from current geopolitical activity which is a further serious and immediate threat. As bad as things appear, it can be easy to forget that this is not the first time that science has been under serious threat.
Robert Merton was a foundational figure in modern sociology, who pioneered the sociology of science, functional analysis, and criminology. He introduced many influential concepts including, the self\u2011fulfilling prophecy and the Matthew Effect. In 1942 he wrote an essay on \"The Normative Structure of Science\". My copy of this work is published in a 1973 book The Sociology of Science edited by Norman W Storer.
In the essay Merton notes (my emphasis):
\"Incipient and actual attacks upon the integrity of science have led scientists to recognize their dependence on particular types of social structure. Manifestos and pronouncements by associations of scientists are devoted to the relations of science and society. An institution under attack must re-examine its foundations, restate its objectives, seek out its rationale. Crisis invites self-appraisal. [my emphasis]
These are words that resonate strongly today. Forget 'incipient', there are clear actual attacks on science happening now.
In the essay Merton identifies four norms of science: Universalism, Communalism, Disinterestedness and Organized Scepticism. Between them they represent the broadly understood approach to science (and by science I mean all research) across the globe.
It is very clear these norms are under significant strain, due to a combination of the reward system both incentivising questionable research practices and generating new markets for paper mills and the like, and political interference in research funding and research focus.
Considering Universalism - \"scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants\" \u2013 it would be hard to argue the current environment in the US with a high level of political interference in research is not running counter to this. A couple of examples include CDC staff being prohibited from co-authoring papers with World Health Organisation personnel and significant numbers of grants being terminated on ideological grounds.
The norm of Disinterestedness - that \"scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of individuals within them\" is not served by the gamification of publication. Publication patterns of researchers and institutions are transformed by the publication types that are included in their performance evaluation.
The threat to ban or restrict researchers' ability to publish in particular journals and insisting they publish in an 'in-house' journal challenges the norm of Communalism - that \"all scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm\"
But the norm that has been under the greatest pressure for some time now is that of Organized Scepticism \u2013 that \"scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct\". This is the process we now know as peer review, which began in its current form in the mid 1970s.
Merton wrote his piece towards the end of World War Two. From the end of the war until the mid-1970s, the commercial model of academic publishing fitted well with the needs of an expanding international and specialised academic research base. Since then, the industry has simply continued to expand.
The increase of submissions to journals has exploded since the release of ChatGPT, with one journal experiencing a rise of 42% since late 2022. An analysis showed this was \"almost entirely due to manuscripts with substantial AI-generated text \u2026By early 2026, the majority of manuscripts submitted to Organization Science contain detectable AI-generated writing. The fastest growing category is \u2026 manuscripts where 70% or more of the text appears to be AI generated.\"
The sheer volume of articles being submitted for publication is causing major disruptions to the editorial process. A study from eight years of activity in the publication management tool ScholarOne showed that while the global reviewer pool grew 54% between 2018 and 2025, the rate at which the reviewers accept invitations has fallen. According to the study: \"It now takes editors an average of 4.5 invitations to secure a review, \u2026[and] per 100 invitations sent, editors wait a combined 407 days for reviewers who ultimately say no or say nothing at all.\"
Commentary abounds about the pressure peer review is currently under, such as this depressing screen grab of the editorial processes for an article before finally being withdrawn after multiple months and eight rounds of contacting reviewers without a single review being undertaken. One editor has called for \"scientists, universities, publishers, and funders \u2026 to treat peer review as the essential work that it is, not as an optional favour\".
This increase in submissions appears to be accompanied by a drop in assessment. Different publishers are exponentially increasing the number of articles they are publishing but approaching the issue in different ways. Large publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature have increased the number of journals they publish, and distributed articles across them. Newer publishers such as MDPI and Frontiers have simply increased the number of articles published in any given journal and for these publishers \"articles, regardless of initial quality or field of research, and despite the expectation of heterogeneity, are all accepted in an increasingly similar time frame\". Peer review appears to be a victim of these approaches.
The system is dysfunctional in other ways, with one author humorously noting that given they could not understand the title of the manuscript they had been sent to review that \"an AI powered toaster oven would be an improvement over me\".
So what is the future of peer review? This is a live topic, itself generating more articles that themselves require peer review (!) Suggestions abound. In some cases, publishers are embracing AI in the peer review process. Springer Nature is claiming in a press release that this results in \"less friction and increased author satisfaction\". The result, claim Springer Nature, is that \"authors can spend more time doing research and editors and reviewers can make better and faster decisions\".
At least one editor of Neuroscience journal is not happy with these developments, resigning over concerns about automation stating \"these are \u2026 intentional features, designed to essentially remove the human editors as much as possible\".
Many proposals are turning to introducing a series of quality control measures across the research process. One commentator, who argues \"the scientific publishing model is facing a systemic crisis that should be addressed\" proposes a 'continuum of consensus' as a quality control system. There appear to be more options in the market considering the question of 'trust markers'. In May this year a group of scholarly societies in the biological and biomedical sciences announced the launch of the Trust Seal framework initiative \"to provide greater confidence in publications that have adopted community-led best practices for trustworthy science\". The TrustMarc Initiative is an open effort to make trust in content visible, verifiable, and portable and is currently looking for development partners such as research organisations to help the development of the initiative.
The possibly natural end point of this would be a journal that accepts AI generated articles, peer reviews them using AI and all the editorial decisions are made by AI tools. Oh wait, it exists \u2013 it is called the Journal of AI by AI (JAAI).
If we collectively don't really start addressing the whole scientific ecosystem, we may well all drown in a sea of AI slop.
PS: For more insight into the question of Merton's Norms, you may wish to read: Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.
This is the final reading in the series for the course \u2013 thank you for staying to the end!
Every year, since 2017 the FORCE11 Scholarly Communication Institute runs a series of courses for the scholarly communication community. This started in person, went online during COVID and after a one year gathering at UCLA in 2024 is online once more.
Where do we go from here?
On May 17, 2026, Sholto David identified one fabricated image presented as validation data in Thermo Fisher's antibody catalog. By May 28, we had identified more than 100 fabricated images, which expanded to more than 450 images in Thermo Fisher's catalog and one in Abcam's catalog by June 3 (see my previous blog post). We set up a Zenodo repository to collect all these instances of apparent manipulation of antibody validation data and a form for others to report suspicious images in vendor's antibody validation data that they had found themselves.
\n\n\n\nUnderstandably, this revelation prompted considerable outrage among biomedical scientists, as reported by Nature, Chemistry World, The Scientist, GenomeWeb and others. Phillip Broadwith, Business editor for Chemistry World, summarizes: \"The discovery of extensive manipulation in Western blot images used by laboratory supply giant Thermo Fisher Scientific as verification data for antibody reagents has led to a serious breakdown of trust between the company and its customers.\"
\n\n\n\nThis update is to say that this newfound distrust should probably extend to a good fraction of the research antibody industry at large. Our repository now contains 18,943 images presented as validation data for 17,495 unique antibody products sold by 15 different vendors1. In order of discovery, these vendors are:
\n\n\n\nBelow, I summarize the findings for each company and provide a short postscript detailing my own opinion about what should happen from here. Note that while I have tried to document as many instances of apparent manipulation as possible, the figures shown here do not represent a complete audit of each company's catalog. Moreover, many images I've reviewed look as though they may have been manipulated, but are too low-resolution for me to offer a confident opinion. I've elected not to include these images in the repository. For all of these images, the best way to know if falsification has occurred is to inspect the original, high-resolution images, which may or may not be available, even to the vendors themselves.
\n\n\n\nFor these reasons, a vendor having a larger or smaller number of manipulated images documented here should not be interpreted as an indication that it has a larger or smaller manipulation problem than the other companies listed here. All of these companies have some level of manipulated images in their catalogs and they should each comprehensively and transparently audit the images in their respective catalogs. Finally, if a vendor is not present here, it is not an indication that their catalog is free of manipulation.
\n\n\n\nHundreds of these problematic images were first identified by others, including Sholto David, Elisabeth Bik, Javeria Nishtar, Maxwell Marley, Marvin Bader, HKADolan, Bryan Heit and several community members that prefer to remain anonymous. Many other community members submitted images that they found suspicious, but were too low-resolution for me to make a confident determination and include them in the repository. I want to thank all these people for taking the time to document and report their findings. I encourage readers to report any suspicious validation data they notice in vendor catalogs here.
\n\n\n\nIt is clear that many of these vendors are using the same images as one another for their own versions of the same product. For instance, this HAS1 antibody from Thermo Fisher uses the same Western blot image as similar products from Millipore Sigma, Novus (R&D Systems) and Boster Bio. I only noticed this because the image used for the HAS1 antibody has the exact same pattern of background noise as a different Western blot image used for a different antibody also sold by Thermo Fisher, implying that at least one of these images is fabricated.
\n\n\n\nAt least six companies (Thermo Fisher, Abcam, LSBio, Antibodies.com, G-Biosciences and GeneTex) present a Western blot using the exact same \"background pattern A\" as thousands of other antibody products. I described background pattern A in my previous blog post.
\n\n\n\nIf they aren't using the exact same images as one another, different companies will often use images that are so stylistically similar that it is clear that they originated from the same art studio laboratory.
Identical images across multiple vendors probably reflect the industry practicing private labeling, where one manufacturer produces a product that they then sell to other companies to market and sell under their own branding. It appears that the original manufacturer of these antibodies also passed along their validation data to the final vendor, who then placed them on their website.
\n\n\n\nThermo Fisher Scientific, headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, is probably the world's largest supplier of laboratory equipment and reagents and was the first company that was noted to have presented fabricated images as validation data. In response to the public outrage, Thermo Fisher released a baffling 15-point FAQ wherein they promise an investigation, but repeatedly state that \"antibody images may have been optimized for presentation and clarity on the website\". Shortly after, they revised their FAQ to just seven points. To the carefully-worded question \"Did Thermo Fisher manipulate or fabricate antibody data?\", they emphatically respond:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNo. The Company fully stands by the data and underlying science. We are confident in the quality of the products within our antibody catalog and our performance guarantee is valid for products purchased directly from Thermo Fisher Scientific or any of our authorized distributors. For further information, please refer to the Invitrogen\u2122 antibody performance guarantee.
\n
Note that this answer only claims that Thermo Fisher itself did not manipulate or fabricate antibody data, which leaves the company room to offer a clean mea culpa if their review finds that the images were manipulated by a third party. Regardless of which party is responsible for the manipulation, Thermo Fisher used these images to market their products to scientists hungry for antibodies that actually perform as advertised.
\n\n\n\nAround the same time that their FAQ was revised, Thermo Fisher and added a disclaimer to all antibody product pages in small gray type:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPlease note: We are reviewing Western blot images included in the antibody testing data in our catalog, including those provided by third parties. Unless expressly labeled or annotated as \"raw-unedited\", Western blot images included in the antibody testing data in our catalog may have been edited, optimized or otherwise adjusted for presentation.
\n
Thus far, I have not seen any images in Thermo Fisher's catalog that are labeled as \"raw-unedited\". Note that Thermo Fisher has not committed to making the findings of their investigation public.
\n\n\n\nMore than a thousand newly-documented images from Thermo Fisher's catalog contain artefacts of \"painting\", where someone presumably has brushed over some undesirable image features in Photoshop or a similar program (some highlights below).
\n\n\n\nDozens of other images feature duplicated regions of background noise.
\n\n\n\nThousands of other images feature the same background patterns with the bands repositioned to correspond to the expected molecular weight, as in the previously-documented \"background pattern A\" and \"background pattern B\".
\n\n\n\nIf 450 images was not enough to convince Thermo Fisher that this is not data they should \"fully stand behind\", maybe 5,000 images will be.
\n\n\n\nAnother way to stoke confidence in buyers that an antibody works as advertised is to show them that other scientists have successfully used it. To that end, most antibody vendors show \"citations\" and \"references\" on product pages, listing published articles wherein the authors state that they used the antibody in their experiments. These product citations are compiled by services like CiteAb, the Antibody Registry and BenchSci. Thermo Fisher's product pages collect citations to the product and provide a short quotation from each describing how the reagent was used.
\n\n\n\nI was alerted to a problem with these citations by a post by Sander Kersten, who complained that:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Thermo Fisher] is quoting a sentence from our manuscript, written 25 years ago, indicating that we used their antibody. However, we didn’t, and the quote is a total fabrication.
\n
The product page makes it appear as if it is quoting directly from Kersten et al. (2000): \"PA1-1053 was used in western blot to investigate the function of PPAR alpha and characterize FIAF during fasting\". The actual relevant quotation from Kersten et al. is \"[t]he polyclonal antibody used was directed against the epitope CQGPKGKDAPFKDSE in the N-terminal region of FIAF. The peptide affinity-purified antibody was generated in rabbit and ordered via Eurogentec’s customized antibody production service.\" In other words, Kersten et al. never claim to use the Thermo Fisher product in question. The antibody they used binds the same epitope (amino acid sequence) as PA1-1053 claims, but the authors explicitly state that it came from a different manufacturer.
\n\n\n\nIn fact, every single apparent quotation from a product reference on Thermo Fisher’s site is not actually from the reference manuscript. For instance, the same product page that misquoted Kersten et al. also makes it appear as if it is quoting directly from Choudhuri et al. (2021): \"PA1-1053 was used in Western Blotting to gain insight into the mechanisms that result in such changes by Tempol in female C3H mice\". The actual relevant quotation from Choudhuri et al. reads \"[f]ollowing transfer to nitrocellulose, samples were probed with primary antibodies ALDH1A1 (ab52492) from Abcam (Waltham, MA), ANGPTL4/FIAF (PA1-1053) from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA) followed by rabbit secondary antibody from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Dallas, TX), and were visualized by chemiluminescence (PerkinElmer; Billerica, MA)\".
\n\n\n\nI believe these summaries are AI-generated, but they are clearly presented (in quotation marks, no less) as if they are direct quotations from the manuscript. While product pages on Thermo Fisher are littered with buttons prompting users to \"Ask AI about this product\", users are given no indication that these quotations are AI-generated nor that they are not actually quotations. Every Reference section does have an \"AI-generated summary\" at the top, however, this part is not presented in quotation marks and is clearly disclaimed as being AI-generated, unlike the references themselves.
\n\n\n\nMoreover, many of these summaries are inaccurate, such as the reference to Kersten et al.! I ran spot-checks of 15 references from another antibody (MA5-14520, Ki-67 Recombinant Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody clone SP6) and found 4 listed references (1, 2, 3, 4) that state that they used a rabbit antibody from Thermo Fisher (or one of the brands acquired by Thermo Fisher) but don’t actually specify that it was MA5-14520. Thermo Fisher currently sells 54 antibodies targeting Ki-67 with rabbits as the host organism.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nThermo Fisher’s response to this latest update is not substantively different from their previous responses. From Dan Garisto’s reporting for Nature:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNone of the companies contacted by Nature responded to questions about shared backgrounds, although Thermo Fisher said in its statement that western blot images in its catalogue had been generated over many years, including by third parties, and that it is updating or replacing images where appropriate.
\n
From Mitch Leslie’s reporting for Science:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA spokesperson for Thermo Fisher says: \"Our ongoing review has found no evidence of impact to antibody performance or the underlying scientific data.\"
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHowever, the company did not address the concern about the literature reference and did not say whether Thermo Fisher has identified any wrongdoings yet, either internally or by third parties, through its review process.
\n
Thermo Fisher has still not committed to publicly sharing the results of their review.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 14 September 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nThermo Fisher has now removed the quotation marks from each of the citation summaries on each product page.
\n\n\n\nAbcam is based in Cambridge, UK and was acquired by the Danaher Corporation, headquartered in Washington, DC, in 2023. We previously found just one instance of image manipulation in Abcam's catalog (an appearance by \"background pattern A\"). After making this public, Abcam issued a short statement to The Scientist and wordlessly removed the image from the antibody's product page. The product remains for sale.
\n\n\n\nThe newly-documented manipulations contain a lot of patchwork painting of background noise in Western blots, as well as several dozen appearances of background patterns C and D.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Shelby Bradford’s reporting for The Scientist:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAn Abcam spokesperson, one of the 15 vendors implicated, said that scientists at the company conduct internal validation for their in-house generated products and review any data images provided externally. They added that when concerns arise, they conduct an investigation of the image, referring to the original data where possible and removing images where this is not available. They declined to comment on an individual example but noted that a review is underway.
\n
From Mitch Leslie’s reporting for Science:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAbcam's spokesperson says the company is evaluating the recently identified cases. Moreover, the spokesperson adds, \"Every validation image, whether generated by Abcam or provided by a partner, is reviewed by Abcam scientists before publication.\"
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn an email, an Abcam spokesperson said the “removal or review of a catalog image is not, by itself, a conclusion about product performance.”
\n
Novus Biologicals is a brand owned by R&D Systems, a brand of Bio-Techne, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Bio-Techne announced in June that they would be acquired by Merck KGaA, headquartered in Darmstadt, Germany (not to be confused with the American company Merck & Co., Inc.). The images flagged in our repository mostly feature background pattern C and background pattern D.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Benjamin Plackett’s reporting for C&EN:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nC&EN contacted each of the 15 companies for comment. Six shared responses before the publication deadline: Abcam, Bioss, GeneTex, MilliporeSigma, Novus Biologicals and R&D Systems, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. All of them said they value accuracy and promised to review all of their products that were highlighted in the report.
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBio-Techne, which owns R&D Systems and will soon be part of Merck KGaA, meanwhile, did not comment on any third-party manufacturing of its products.
\n\n\n\nAll of these companies said they are reviewing their antibody catalogs, including the validation images, in light of the data manipulation allegations.
\n
ProteoGenix is headquartered in Schiltigheim, France. An anonymous community member noticed that several images in ProteoGenix's catalog use the exact same background pattern (which I've called \"background pattern E\"). According to this person, they alerted ProteoGenix to the first handful of problematic images that they noticed. ProteoGenix apparently answered this courtesy by silently removing the offending images from the catalog (note that since the catalog pages were not previously archived, I cannot independently verify if ProteoGenix did indeed remove these images after the community report). This person went on to document 200 additional occurrences of the background pattern in ProteoGenix's catalog, after which I found more than 150 more.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nProteoGenix did not respond to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story. However, the offending images appear to have now been removed for all 362 of these products. As far as I can tell, they all remain for sale.
\n\n\n\nOrigene is headquartered in Rockville, Maryland. Most of their newly-documented image manipulations contain evidence of background painting.
\n\n\n\nEven one of the images shown as \"Example Data\" for \"Specificity Validation\" on Origene's \"Antibodies\" landing page appears to have been manipulated.
\n\n\n\n(As it turns out, some of the images I had previously annotated as belonging to Thermo Fisher products actually belonged to Origene products and only appeared on Thermo Fisher's website as part of a partnership with Origene to also include their catalog in Thermo Fisher's search interface. This error has been corrected in the updated version of the repository.)
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 8 September 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nAs reported by Dan Garisto, on August 31 Origene made a press release addressing the situation. In it, Origene states that
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHistorically, limited image processing, including adjustments to brightness and contrast, was permitted to improve visualization for online presentation. Cosmetic removal of isolated background artifacts was also permitted under previous practices, provided that such processing did not alter experimental bands, signals, controls, or the scientific interpretation of the experiment…
\n\n\n\n…The recent report has prompted us to reassess these historical practices against evolving expectations for scientific image integrity and transparency.
\n\n\n\n…OriGene has therefore revised its Western blot image-processing procedures. Cosmetic removal of background artifacts is no longer permitted. Image adjustments will be limited to those consistent with current scientific data-integrity standards, with the objective of preserving an accurate representation of the original experimental data.
\n
They also provide original images for four of the earliest identified problematic images (initially found in Thermo Fisher’s catalog by Elisabeth Bik). These images suggest that the “painting” alterations made were solely cosmetic. However, I will note that the original images provided are still not raw data; they are screenshots of the raw data in a spreadsheet software.
\n\n\n\nNew versions of each of these images without painting have been added to Origene’s catalog. The painted versions remain on Thermo Fisher’s catalog pages for these Origene products.
\n\n\n\nMillipore Sigma is a subsidiary of Merck KGaA, headquartered in Darmstadt, Germany. Most of these image manipulations involve reuse of background patterns C and D.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Shelby Bradford’s reporting for The Scientist:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA spokesperson from MilliporeSigma said that their catalogue includes internally developed and externally sourced antibodies and that they are currently conducting a review of their antibody imagery to ensure that these meet their accuracy and reliability standards.
\n
From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn their response to GenomeWeb, Millipore Sigma, a subsidiary of Merck KgaA; GeneTex, an antibody manufacturer based in Irvine, California; and Abcam all noted that their antibody portfolios include externally sourced products.
\n
LSBio is a subsidiary of Vector Laboratories, based in Newark, California. Their catalog features more than 1,000 repetitions each of background pattern A and background pattern B and hundreds of instances of apparent painting in Western blot and immunofluorescence images.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Dan Garisto’s reporting for Nature:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA spokesperson for LSBio said in a statement that the entries \"amount to less than 0.04% of the total offering on our platform\", but that the firm takes the image concerns seriously and will perform an investigation with its partners.
\n
I am not sure where LSBio got this figure. Their “Antibodies” product page presently lists 312,144 products.
\n\n\n\nBioss is headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts. Hundreds of images in its catalog feature apparent painting or stitching-together of background noise.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
Unlike other companies listed here, Bioss’ initial response seem to actual reflect some conscientiousness. From Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\nOf the companies that responded to GenomeWeb, Woburn, Massachusetts-based Bioss was the only one that provided a more detailed action plan. The firm said it is preserving and reviewing associated records of manipulated images, including available original source files, laboratory documentation, and quality control logs.
\n\n\n\nAccording to a spokesperson, Bioss develops and manufactures all antibodies sold under its brand, but if any relevant testing or image preparation was performed externally, it will identify this in its review. “Regardless of where an experiment may have been performed, Bioss accepts responsibility for validation material published under its name,” the spokesperson said.
\n\n\n\nThe spokesperson also said the company’s antibody validation images “may be prepared for web presentation through cropping, resizing, and documented whole image brightness or contrast adjustments that do not change the scientific meaning of the data.” However, “selective painting, deletion, cloning, enhancement of individual bands or regions, or undisclosed stitching is not acceptable,” he noted.
\n\n\n\nAfter review, if an image cannot be cleared, Bioss will correct, label, or remove it, the spokesperson said. “If the underlying validation for a product claim cannot be confirmed, Bioss will pause that claim and determine whether revalidation or a product hold is appropriate. If a relevant product claim is materially affected, customers will receive appropriate support and remedies,” he noted.
\n
From Benjamin Plackett’s reporting for C&EN:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"If the review establishes that a relevant product claim cannot be substantiated or requires material correction, Bioss will identify affected customers and provide appropriate support and remedies, which may include replacement or refund,\" Bioss says in its statement to C&EN, noting that it had not yet had a chance to assess Richardson's report. \"Bioss intends to disclose material findings and product level corrections after receiving and reviewing the underlying materials.\"
\n
Boster Bio is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. Many images in Boster's catalog feature signs of apparent painting.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn an email, a spokesperson for Pleasanton, California-based Boster Bio said the company does use original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for some of its antibodies, which “tend to be of lesser quality” than those produced in-house. The spokesperson said the company tests its self-produced antibodes with tissues and cell lines and does not manipulate internal validation data before posting on the website.
\n
I’ll let this comment speak for itself, other than to say that there is no indication on Boster’s catalog that any of the affected products are produced by a third party, nor that consumers should expect them to be “of lesser quality”.
\n\n\n\nG-Biosciences is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. A stunning volume of images presented as validation data in G-Biosciences' catalog feature either background pattern A (4,278 images) or background pattern B (2,110 images).
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nG-Biosciences has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nGeneTex is headquartered in Irvine, California. Problematic images in GeneTex's catalog include repetitions of background patterns A and B and at least one instance of copy-pasted background noise.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nFrom Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIn their response to GenomeWeb, Millipore Sigma, a subsidiary of Merck KgaA; GeneTex, an antibody manufacturer based in Irvine, California; and Abcam all noted that their antibody portfolios include externally sourced products.
\n
HUABIO is headquartered in Hangzhou, China. HUABIO's catalog features many instances of apparent painting and repetitive patterns in background noise.
\n\n\n\nSome of the repetitive regions of background noise also inexplicably contain numerals. I do not have a satisfactory explanation for what happened here.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nHUABIO has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nAntibodies.com is headquartered in Cambridge, UK. At least 242 validation images in their catalog feature background pattern A. On August 21, I was alerted that several of these products had been discontinued from the Antibodies.com online catalog since I downloaded these images on August 12 and can no longer be found by search.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nAntibodies.com did not provide a comment to any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story. However, as Huanjia Zhang’s reporting for GenomeWeb shows, they did apparently open their emails:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAfter GenomeWeb reached out to Antibodies.com with three product listings containing examples of apparent image manipulation, the firm deleted these antibodies from its website without offering an explanation. It also did not respond to a request for comment.
\n
Shortly after publishing this story, all 242 affected products were removed from the Antibodies.com catalog.
\n\n\n\nAbnova is headquartered in Taipei, Taiwan. Many validation images in their catalog feature background pattern C or D, signs of apparent painting or compositing, or other common background patterns (\"background pattern G\" and \"background pattern H\") that I have not observed in other vendors' catalogs.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nAbnova has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nSanta Cruz Biotechnology is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. In 2016, the company paid a historically high 3.5 million USD fine to the United States Department of Agriculture to settle numerous allegations of violating the Animal Welfare Act in its treatment of animals used to produce antibodies. Problematic images in Santa Cruz's catalog feature background painting and apparent cloning of background noise.
\n\n\n\n[ UPDATE 26 August 2026 ]
\n\n\n\nSanta Cruz Biotechnology has not responded to requests for comment from any of the outlets that have thus far covered this story.
\n\n\n\nIt cannot be overstated how much biomedical research rides on antibodies performing as intended and how much time researchers lose to working with antibodies that do not perform. Increased recognition of the importance of antibody validation has led to vendors near-universally embedding validation data in their catalogs. However, to many vendors, selling validated antibodies apparently matters less than the semblance of selling validated antibodies.
\n\n\n\nIf an antibody fails internal validation testing by its manufacturer, a responsible vendor would elect not to sell it. However, a large fraction of research antibodies currently for sale do not perform as advertised, as detailed by Ayoubi et al. (2024). Thus, either manufacturers and vendors are willfully ignoring the results of their validation testing or are not performing validation testing in the first place. When a vendor sells an antibody with validation data that has been painted over or otherwise altered, it suggests the former possibility. The many wholly-fabricated Western blots using a common background pattern suggest the latter. Many companies are clearly attaching their quality guarantees to private-label products that they had no part in testing, if testing occurred at all.
\n\n\n\nSkirting validation makes perfect business sense; running validation tests is expensive and it is more profitable to sell a large catalog of untested antibodies than a small catalog of properly-validated products. Ayoubi et al. address this:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCommercial antibody suppliers support a large and diverse catalogue of products, with most antibody products generating <$5000 in total sales, far less than the costs of [knockout]-based validation, estimated at $25,000. While leading companies are increasingly assessing antibody performance, it is exceedingly difficult, and cost restrained, to properly characterize all their products. Even when available, high-performing antibodies may remain hidden within the millions of reagents of unknown quality.
\n
An inconvenient result in validation testing could also mean that the cost of developing an antibody goes unrecouped. I wonder, then, why we feel comfortable outsourcing the critical task of antibody production and distribution to entities whose profit motive encourages them to market products that have not been tested.
\n\n\n\nI do think that readers should direct their ire towards the companies that have been marketing antibodies with faked data. A simple way to do this is for scientists to request the original, unedited validation data images for antibodies they have purchased (Thermo Fisher has already promised that such images will be provided to customers \"where available\"). However, even the most protracted opprobrium will bounce off of large companies like Thermo Fisher or Merck KGaA. Regulation of how research antibodies are produced and marketed will induce longer-term change (and I believe regulation is a minimum necessary step), but there still remains a fundamental mismatch between the needs of the biomedical research community and the interests of the for-profit enterprises producing their crucial reagents. In the long term, I think that the biomedical research community would be better served by the creation of publicly-funded antibody vendors whose interest is in producing antibodies that work, not in producing antibodies that sell.
\n\n\n\nIn the previous post[1] we described the orbital interactions involved in stabilising the formation of a Cp2TiS5 complex (figure 1 below, X=S) rather than a Cp2TiS4 complex when Cp2TiCl2 is treated with a mixture of polysulfide dianions – and how these interactions can be “tuned” by variation in the ring atoms.
\n\n
\nFigure 1. Bis-cyclopentadienyl titanium sulfides.
We identified[1] one compound in which one of the Cp ligands itself is replaced by a hindered phenyoxy group (PUJFUV[2]) thus reducing the number of electrons the Cp ligand contributes to the valence shell of the Ti by four down to only two. Here the effect that this replacement has on the original orbital interactions is explored.
\nA MN15L/Def2-TZVPP calculation[3] shows the geometry of PUJFUV (Figure 2) to have a calculated S-Ti bond length of 2.395 Å. This compares to 2.466Å for Cp2TiS5 itself and this value is also significantly shorter than any of any of the other analogues described in the previous post (the shortest there being 1.453Å)[1]
\n
\nFigure 2. The structure of PUJFUV, a cyclopentadienyl-2,6-di-isopropropoxy titanium pentasulfide.
The interaction previously discussed[1] involves overlap between a p-orbital like lone pair donor on a sufur attached to the Ti with an (almost) empty metal d-orbital (actually a Tid-Sp-π antibonding orbital) as acceptor. PUJFUV has four bonding electrons less than Cp2TiS5 and hence formally now has three empty Ti d-orbitals rather than just one (although some of these electrons may become back-donated from O to Ti, see below).
\nA pair of Sp-Tid interactions are now found,[4] one from each sulfur to a different Ti d-orbital (Figures 2,3) with NBO E(2) interaction energies of 30.92 and 22.06 kcal/mol (Figures 3 and 4 respectively). The first of these is significantly larger than the largest value previously found (23.59) by some margin[1] whilst the second is about the same. For Cp2TiS5 itself, only one such interaction was calculated – because there was only one unoccupied Ti d-orbital.
\n
\nFigure 3. Sp-Tidz2 interaction 1, E(2) = 30.92.[4]
\nFigure 4. Sp-Tid interaction 2, E(2) = 22.06.[4]
There are also three interactions between one of two lone pairs on the oxygen of the phenoxy group and a titanium d-orbital (Figures 5-7), two from a oxygen p-type lone pair (Figures 5 and 6) and one from an s-type oxygen lone pair (Figure 7). The three interactions conspire to reduce the length of the Ti-O bond to a short value, as noted previously, [1] although this tendency towards a Ti≡O triple bond is only formal.
\n
\nFigure 5. Op-Tid interaction 1, E(2) = 17.64.[4]
\nFigure 6. Op-Tid interaction 2, E(2) = 31.53.[4]
\nFigure 7. Os-Tid interaction 3, E(2) = 55.84.[4]
The conclusion is that when a Cp ligand is replaced by an O-Ar one, formally three d-orbitals on the Ti rather than one become available for back-donation and the attached sulfur atoms on the sulfur ring can now interact more strongly with the Ti, hence shortening the Ti-S bond length and increasing the Ti-S partial double bond character. The back donation effect, noted[5] as the crucial reason why 16-electron Ti complexes favour a ring with five rather than four sulfur atoms, is also increased in strength for this 12-electron version.This is likely to be the strongest such back-donation for TiS5 systems, although the hunt is on for even stronger examples.
\nDer Ende Juli verabschiedete Regierungsentwurf des KI-Migrationsverwaltungsgesetzes (KIMVG) will eine breite Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz (KI) in Visa-, Aufenthalts- und Asylverfahren schaffen. Der Gesetzesentwurf sieht vor, personenbezogene Daten f\u00fcr die Entwicklung eigener KI-Systeme zu verarbeiten, Antr\u00e4ge automatisiert mit \u00f6ffentlich zug\u00e4nglichen Internetquellen abzugleichen und ein KI-gest\u00fctztes Verfahrensmonitoring einzuf\u00fchren. Die Bundesregierung begr\u00fcndet das Gesetz mit dem Verweis auf knappe Ressourcen und dem Ziel, Effizienz, Qualit\u00e4t und Sicherheit der Verfahren zu verbessern. Gleichzeitig weisen zivilgesellschaftliche Akteur*innen auf rechtliche L\u00fccken, zu weitreichende Befugnisse und eine Vielzahl offener Fragen hin. Dieser Blogpost analysiert die Grundelemente des KIMVG, gibt einen \u00dcberblick \u00fcber die Einsch\u00e4tzungen und Kritik der Zivilgesellschaft und diskutiert die Wichtigkeit einer breiten gesellschaftlichen Beteiligung bei der Diskussion \u00fcber die Regulierung von KI-Systemen in der Migrations- und Asylverwaltung.
\n\u00a0
\nAm 29.07.2026 beschloss das Bundeskabinett den Regierungsentwurf des sogenannten KI-Migrationsverwaltungsgesetzes (KIMVG), der zu einer Weichenstellung f\u00fcr die Zukunft der deutschen Asyl- und Migrationsverwaltung werden k\u00f6nnte. Mit \u00c4nderungen und Erg\u00e4nzungen des Asylgesetzes und des Aufenthaltsgesetzes will der Entwurf eine breite Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von KI in der Migrationsverwaltung schaffen, konkret bei Visa-, Aufenthalts- und Asylverfahren. Dies betrifft insbesondere drei Punkte: Erstens, ein \"automatisiertes Verfahrensmonitoring\", bei dem abgeschlossene Verfahren KI-gest\u00fctzt ausgewertet werden sollen, um Entscheidungsstrukturen zu identifizieren und Potenziale f\u00fcr Standardisierung und Beschleunigung zu erkennen. Zweitens \u2013 bei begr\u00fcndeten Zweifeln \u2013 ein automatisierter Abgleich von Angaben mit Quellen aus dem Internet, zum Beispiel aus sozialen Netzwerken. Drittens, eine Nutzung von personenbezogenen Daten, um beh\u00f6rdliche KI-Systeme zuk\u00fcnftig zu trainieren, zu validieren und zu testen. Das beim Bundesministerium des Inneren (BMI) angesiedelte Gesetzgebungsverfahren geht auf ein Eckpunktepapier des BMI und des Ausw\u00e4rtigen Amts (AA) von 2025 zur\u00fcck. Nach Ver\u00f6ffentlichung des ersten Referentenentwurfs des KIMVG am 25.06.2026 wurden eine Reihe von Verb\u00e4nden und zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen um Stellungnahme innerhalb einer Woche gebeten. Die Kurzfristigkeit wurde von allen stellungnehmenden Akteur*innen kritisiert. Der Deutsche Caritasverband e.V. schreibt beispielsweise, dass \"eine vertiefte fachliche und rechtliche Pr\u00fcfung des Entwurfs [angesichts der au\u00dferordentlich kurzen Frist] nicht m\u00f6glich war\". Als n\u00e4chste Schritte im Gesetzgebungsverfahren folgen Abstimmungen im Bundestag und Bundesrat \u2013 eine genaue Timeline ist jedoch zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt ungewiss.
\n\u00a0
\nBereits das Eckpunktepapier von AA und BMI von 2025 begr\u00fcndet die Notwendigkeit f\u00fcr KI und Automatisierung mit Verweis auf \"gesteigerte Effizienz\" und \"mehr Sicherheit\". Durch (Teil-)Automatisierung sollen Verfahren \"schneller und weniger ressourcenintensiv\" und Wartezeiten verk\u00fcrzt werden, wodurch insbesondere die Fachkr\u00e4fteeinwanderung profitiere. Ebenso verweist der Regierungsentwurf des KIMVG auf \"stetig steigende Antragsaufkommen\", begrenzte personelle und organisatorische Kapazit\u00e4ten, sowie eine uneinheitliche Verwaltungspraxis und Rechtsanwendung. Das Gesetz solle nun einen \"rechtssicheren und datenschutzkonformen Rahmen\" schaffen, um \"durch den Einsatz digitaler Verfahren \u2013 insbesondere K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz \u2013 die Effizienz, Einheitlichkeit, Qualit\u00e4t und Sicherheit\" der Verfahren zu erh\u00f6hen.
\nDer Regierungsentwurf des KIMVG wird damit durchg\u00e4ngig mit einer bestimmten Problemdiagnose begr\u00fcndet: Komplexe rechtliche Vorgaben, die Vielzahl von Antragsstrecken und Antr\u00e4gen f\u00fchrten zu einer uneinheitlichen Verwaltungspraxis; ohne strukturelle Anpassungen sei angesichts begrenzter Ressourcen eine zus\u00e4tzliche Belastung der Verfahren absehbar. Diese Diagnose trifft ein reales Problem: Der \u00f6ffentliche Dienst in Deutschland und insbesondere die Ausl\u00e4nderbeh\u00f6rden leiden unter Personalmangel, und langwierige Verfahren belasten sowohl Antragsstellende als auch die zust\u00e4ndigen Beamt*innen. Was die Antragszahlen betrifft, ist die Faktenlage jedoch weniger eindeutig. Die Gesamtzahl der Asylantr\u00e4ge beispielsweise sank von 330.000 im Jahr 2023 auf rund 130.000 im Jahr 2025.
\nVor diesem Hintergrund ist es bemerkenswert, dass der Entwurf KI als einzig denkbare und kostenneutrale L\u00f6sung darstellt und dabei zus\u00e4tzliche Ressourcen f\u00fcr die Ausl\u00e4nderbeh\u00f6rden oder vereinfachte Verfahrensregeln als Alternativen ebenso ausblendet wie die Kosten, die mit der Einf\u00fchrung von KI einhergehen werden. Die Forschung warnt vor der Annahme, dass die Einf\u00fchrung von KI in der \u00f6ffentlichen Verwaltung automatisch Kosteneinsparungen und Effizienzgewinne mit sich bringt. Wie auch die Deutsche Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) in ihrer Stellungnahme zum Regierungsentwurf anmerkt, erfordert eine weitergehende Digitalisierung und die Einf\u00fchrung von KI in der deutschen Migrationsverwaltung zun\u00e4chst zus\u00e4tzliches Personal, Schulungen und technische Infrastruktur \u2013 Kosten, die der Entwurf nicht ber\u00fccksichtigt. Die Argumentation im Entwurf steht f\u00fcr eine allgemeinere Tendenz, ein im Kern politisches Problem \u2013 Personalmangel, Ressourcenverteilung, komplexe verwaltungs- und rechtstechnische Sachverhalte \u2013 vorrangig durch neue Technologie l\u00f6sen zu wollen.
\n\u00a0
\nIm Rahmen des Gesetzgebungsprozesses ver\u00f6ffentlichte das BMI sechs Stellungnahmen von Bundesvereinigungen, Verb\u00e4nden und B\u00fcrgerrechtsorganisationen: der AWO Bundesverband e.V., die Bundesvereinigung der kommunalen Spitzenverb\u00e4nde, die Deutsche Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) e.V., der Deutsche Caritasverband e.V., Pro Asyl sowie Statefree e.V. Dar\u00fcber hinaus kommentierten weitere Akteur*innen den Gesetzesentwurf auf ihren eigenen Webseiten, wie beispielsweise netzpolitik.org, AlgorithmWatch oder auch die Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Informatik e.V.
\nMehrere Verb\u00e4nde erkennen an, dass die Digitalisierung der Migrationsverwaltung dringend n\u00f6tig ist, um Verfahren zu beschleunigen. Dennoch dominiert in den Stellungnahmen eine eher kritische Haltung, insbesondere mit Blick auf drei Punkte: (1) den fehlenden und unzureichenden Rechtsschutz; (2) Risiken von Diskriminierung und Bias; und (3) die Vagheit des Entwurfs, auch hinsichtlich der Entscheidungsmacht von KI-Systemen.
\nEin erster Kritikpunkt, der sich durch nahezu alle Stellungnahmen der Verb\u00e4nde zieht, betrifft die Vereinbarkeit mit Datenschutz, Verfassungsrecht und EU-Recht. Mehrere Verb\u00e4nde \u00e4u\u00dfern datenschutzrechtliche Bedenken, da die Nutzung personenbezogener Daten insgesamt zu umfassend sei. Der Entwurf erlaubt, unter bestimmten Umst\u00e4nden, auch die Verwendung nicht anonymisierter Daten. Hinsichtlich des Verfahrensmonitorings sollen selbst biometrische Daten weiterverarbeitet werden k\u00f6nnen, wenn ihre Aussonderung \"technisch unm\u00f6glich ist oder unverh\u00e4ltnism\u00e4\u00dfig hohen technischen Aufwand erfordert\". Auch ist fraglich, ob sensible, personenbezogene Daten wieder vollst\u00e4ndig gel\u00f6scht werden k\u00f6nnen, nachdem sie f\u00fcr die Entwicklung von KI-Systemen und insbesondere von Large Language Models (LLMs) genutzt wurden \u2013 Modelle, die basierend auf gro\u00dfen Datenmengen darauf abzielen, menschliche Sprache zu analysieren und zu generieren. Laut Pro Asyl verfehle der Entwurf au\u00dferdem die Anforderungen an gerechte und faire Verwaltungsverfahren im Sinne grundrechtskonformer Verfahrensgestaltung und effektiven Rechtsschutzes und schaffe stattdessen die Grundlage f\u00fcr \"intransparente, algorithmisch gesteuerte Entscheidungsprozesse\". Zwar postuliert der Entwurf, allgemein mit dem EU-Recht konform zu sein, doch werden mehreren Verb\u00e4nden und auch Wissenschaftler*innen zufolge Vorgaben hinsichtlich der EU Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) und der EU KI-Verordnung (KI-VO) missachtet. So beruft sich der Gesetzentwurf beispielsweise auf \u00a7 10 Abs. 3 der KI-VO, wonach Trainingsdaten \"relevant, hinreichend repr\u00e4sentativ, fehlerfrei und vollst\u00e4ndig\" sein m\u00fcssen. Wie die Deutsche Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) in ihrer Stellungnahme betont, ist dies im Migrationskontext eine hohe H\u00fcrde: Das Ausl\u00e4nderzentralregister (AZR), das weitgehend auf denselben Datenquellen basiert, mit denen die KI sehr wahrscheinlich trainiert werden w\u00fcrde, weist bekannterma\u00dfen erhebliche Genauigkeitsdefizite auf, die dadurch versch\u00e4rft werden, dass sich viele der relevanten Merkmale schnell \u00e4ndern und veralten.
\nEin zweiter akteurs\u00fcbergreifender Kritikpunkt betrifft Fragen rund um Diskriminierung und Bias der geplanten KI-Systeme. Der Entwurf nimmt die Beh\u00f6rden in die Pflicht, keine diskriminierenden Algorithmen herauszubilden oder zu verwenden, ohne jedoch zu erl\u00e4utern, wie das sichergestellt werden soll. Konkret besteht hier ein zentrales technisches Problem: Gro\u00dfe Sprachmodelle generieren Outputs durch erlernte Muster und statistische Wahrscheinlichkeiten auf Grundlage von Trainingsdaten. Werden umfassende Daten aus bereits abgeschlossenen Verfahren als Grundlage f\u00fcr ein KI-Training genutzt, k\u00f6nnten bereits existierende Verzerrungen reproduziert werden. So k\u00f6nne die Datengrundlage bei der KI-Entwicklung je nach Auswahl diskriminierende Stereotype widerspiegeln oder festigen, warnt Pro Asyl. Eine wirksame Gegenma\u00dfnahme bestehe, der Deutschen Vereinigung f\u00fcr Datenschutz (DVD) zufolge, beispielsweise in verpflichtenden, externen und unabh\u00e4ngigen Kontrollverfahren.
\nEin dritter Kritikpunkt der Organisationen betrifft die Vagheit und mangelnde Bestimmtheit des Entwurfs, insbesondere mit Blick auf die Frage, wie viel Entscheidungsmacht KI-Systeme in Verfahren perspektivisch h\u00e4tten. Laut Entwurf verbleiben individuelle verfahrenstechnische Entscheidungen weiterhin in menschlicher Verantwortung und das BMI betont im Regierungsentwurf, dass \"die individuelle Pr\u00fcfung vollst\u00e4ndig in der Verantwortung der zust\u00e4ndigen Mitarbeitenden liege\". Hier kritisieren Verb\u00e4nde allerdings, dass unklar bleibt, wie dem sogenannten Automation-Bias vorgebeugt werden soll \u2013 also der Tendenz, maschinellen Entscheidungen eher zu vertrauen als dem menschlichen Urteil. Ohne flankierende Ma\u00dfnahmen k\u00f6nnten Entscheidungen so faktisch KI-basiert erfolgen. Die Stellungnahmen fordern hier mehrfach eine verbindliches Human-in-the-Loop-Prinzip und eine klarere Definition des Verh\u00e4ltnisses zwischen der KI-Nutzung f\u00fcr das allgemeine Verfahrensmonitoring und der Einzelfallentscheidung.
\nUnklarheiten bestehen jedoch nicht nur hinsichtlich der Entscheidungsmacht, sondern ziehen sich durch den gesamten Regierungsentwurf. Die Verb\u00e4nde kritisieren, dass weitreichende Rechtsgrundlagen f\u00fcr den KI-Einsatz geschaffen werden, ohne hinreichend festzulegen, welche konkreten Systeme k\u00fcnftig f\u00fcr welche Zwecke eingesetzt werden d\u00fcrfen und wo ihre Grenzen liegen. Der AWO Bundesverband e.V. bem\u00e4ngelt entsprechend, dass von regelbasierter Dokumentenerkennung bis zur vollautomatisierten Risikoeinsch\u00e4tzung nahezu alle Szenarien denkbar seien.
\nAngesichts dieser sich durch den Entwurf ziehenden Unklarheiten fordern Verb\u00e4nde teils eine intensive \u00dcberarbeitung, teils ein Zur\u00fcckziehen des Entwurfs.
\n\n
\u00dcber die drei zentralen Kritikpunkte der Zivilgesellschaft und Interessengruppen hinaus l\u00e4sst der Entwurf eine lange Liste weiterer Fragen unbeantwortet. Welche Transparenzma\u00dfnahmen w\u00fcrden f\u00fcr Migrantinnen und Asylbewerberinnen gelten, deren F\u00e4lle analysiert werden? Wie w\u00fcrden Sachbearbeiter*innen im Umgang mit diesen Systemen geschult? Wie lie\u00dfe sich verhindern, dass im Zuge einer uneinheitlich fortschreitenden Digitalisierung parallele, inkompatible Systeme zwischen den Beh\u00f6rden entstehen? Wie w\u00fcrden die Systeme der Komplexit\u00e4t unterschiedlicher Verfahrensarten und individueller Umst\u00e4nde gerecht werden?
\nBei vielen der Vorschl\u00e4ge des Entwurfs h\u00e4ngt es au\u00dferdem von der technischen Ausgestaltung und flankierenden Ma\u00dfnahmen, zum Beispiel Schulungen ab, wie rechtskonform und gewinnbringend sie f\u00fcr die Verwaltung aber auch Antragsstellende sein k\u00f6nnen. Das automatisierte Verfahrensmonitoring beispielsweise ist laut Entwurf auf die Gewinnung \"verallgemeinerungsf\u00e4higer Erkenntnisse\" ausgerichtet. Einerseits kann die Analyse vergangener Entscheidungen dazu beitragen, Inkonsistenzen, Diskriminierungsmuster oder strukturelle Fehlentwicklungen in der bisherigen Entscheidungspraxis sichtbar zu machen. Andererseits kann dieselbe Analyse eine normalisierende Wirkung entfalten, indem bestehende Entscheidungsmuster zum Ausgangspunkt f\u00fcr die Weiterentwicklung zuk\u00fcnftiger Verfahren werden. Insbesondere in Asylverfahren, in denen Anerkennungsquoten auch f\u00fcr Personen der gleichen Nationalit\u00e4t, mit \u00e4hnlichen Schutzgesuchen von politischen Faktoren beeinflusst werden und \u00fcber die Zeit variieren k\u00f6nnen, stellt sich die Frage, wie genau \"Muster\" erkannt und aktuelle Entscheidungspraktiken beeinflussen sollen.
\nNat\u00fcrlich l\u00e4sst sich nicht erwarten, dass ein Gesetzentwurf all diese Fragen bereits abschlie\u00dfend beantwortet. Bemerkenswert ist dennoch, wie unbestimmt der Entwurf an zentralen Stellen bleibt. Der Umfang dieser offenen Fragen ist selbst Teil der Kritik, wie auch zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen und Wissenschaftler*innen anmerken: Ein Gesetz, das eine dauerhafte Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von KI in der Migrationsverwaltung schaffen soll, \u00fcberl\u00e4sst zahlreiche operative Details \u2013 jene Details also, die dar\u00fcber entscheiden w\u00fcrden, ob die Systeme in der Praxis fair, nachvollziehbar und wirksam sind und wie stark KI die tats\u00e4chliche Entscheidungsfindung beeinflusst \u2013 einer sp\u00e4teren Kl\u00e4rung.
\n\n
Neben Kritikpunkten an dem konkreten Gesetzentwurf kristallisieren sich auch einige grunds\u00e4tzliche Fragen sowohl zum Prozess der Gesetzfindung als auch allgemein zum Einsatz von KI in der Migrationsverwaltung heraus. In Zeiten, in denen Digitalisierung bereits ein nicht wegzudenkender Bestandteil in der Gesellschaft scheint, geht es dabei vor allem um die Frage wie diese neue Dimension der Digitalisierung gestaltet werden kann, wer dabei beteiligt werden sollte und was wir aus anderen Kontexten lernen k\u00f6nnen.
\nFragen dieser Tragweite w\u00fcrden eigentlich eine breite gesellschaftspolitische Debatte erfordern. Eine solche Debatte hat bislang jedoch kaum stattgefunden \u2013 die Bundesregierung treibt den Gesetzgebungsprozess stattdessen mit erkennbarem zeitlichem Druck voran, was sich auch in der kurzen Beteiligungsfrist der Verb\u00e4nde widerspiegelt. Der Zeitdruck auf Seiten der Regierung geht bereits aus dem Eckpunktepapier von AA und BMI von 2025 hervor, wenn beispielsweise ein \"schneller, wirksamer und sicherer Modernisierungserfolg\" als erkl\u00e4rtes Ziel formuliert wird. Auch sah das Papier f\u00fcr den Sommer dieses Jahres eigentlich bereits die Verabschiedung des Gesetzes durch den Bundestag vor.
\nDem entgegen steht die Position, wonach eine potenziell so grundlegende Neuausrichtung der Migrationsverwaltung und Entscheidungspraxis durch zentrale Akteur*innen des Politikfeldes vorbereitet und durch den Gesetzgebungsprozess hinweg begleitet werden muss. So fordert der AWO Bundesverband e.V. beispielsweise \"eine sorgf\u00e4ltige rechtliche, ethische und praktische Pr\u00fcfung\", die viele der grunds\u00e4tzlichen Fragen vor einer Einf\u00fchrung von KI-Systemen beleuchten m\u00fcsse. Konkret schl\u00e4gt der Verband deshalb eine unabh\u00e4ngige und interdisziplin\u00e4r besetzte Expert*innenkommission vor, um zun\u00e4chst zu pr\u00fcfen, \"ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen der Einsatz von KI-Systemen in Verwaltungsverfahren mit den Anforderungen des Rechtsstaats sowie den Rechten der Betroffenen vereinbar ist\". Offen bleibt zudem, welche Akteur*innen die von KI-Systemen Betroffenen angemessen repr\u00e4sentieren k\u00f6nnen bzw. wie Migrant*innen selbst \u2013 beispielsweise durch Akteur*innen wie das Refugee Advisory Board (RAB) Germany oder die Vielzahl von Migrant*innenorganisationen\u2013 den Gesetzgebungsprozess beeinflussen k\u00f6nnen.
\nEine angemessene Beteiligung verschiedener Akteur*innen und eine gesellschaftspolitische Diskussion solch weitreichender Entscheidungen ist nicht nur demokratietheoretisch w\u00fcnschenswert, sondern letztlich auch f\u00fcr das Gelingen KI-gest\u00fctzter Verfahren entscheidend. Eine Vielzahl wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten hat bisherige \u2013 eher top-down initiierte \u2013 Bestrebungen, KI im Bereich Migration und Asyl einzusetzen, kritisch beleuchtet: etwa die Dialekterkennungssoftware des BAMF oder den Einsatz des Geomatch-Algorithmus in den Niederlanden, der mittlerweile bereits in der Pilotphase gestoppt wurde. Zuvor hatten Forschungsarbeiten auf die diskriminierenden Wirkweisen des zugrundeliegenden Algorithmus hingewiesen. Solche Systeme sind nicht nur mit Blick auf die Betroffenen h\u00f6chst problematisch und k\u00f6nnen zu Verletzungen von Grund- und Menschenrechten f\u00fchren, sondern k\u00f6nnen letztlich auch einen Reputationsschaden f\u00fcr die zust\u00e4ndigen Regierungen mit sich bringen.
\nDass KI und Digitalisierung globale Mobilit\u00e4t ma\u00dfgeblich ver\u00e4ndern und Chancen, Herausforderungen sowie Risiken f\u00fcr das Migrationsmanagement in der EU und Deutschland mit sich bringen, r\u00fcckt zunehmend in den Fokus wissenschaftlicher und gesellschaftspolitscher Debatten. Obwohl das KIMVG ein konkretes Beispiel daf\u00fcr ist, wie Gesetzgebung diese Chancen und Herausforderungen gestalten kann, findet die Auseinandersetzung bislang vor allem in Fachkreisen statt. In der breiteren \u00d6ffentlichkeit und den gro\u00dfen Medien wird der Entwurf bisher nur punktuell aufgegriffen. Das erschwert insbesondere Betroffenen \u2013 zus\u00e4tzlich zur juristischen Komplexit\u00e4t des Gesetzes \u2013 den Zugang zum Diskurs. Insgesamt macht der Entwurf deutlich, dass Fragen des KI-Einsatzes in der Migrations- und Asylverwaltung zweierlei ben\u00f6tigen: einen pr\u00e4zise formulierten und grundrechtskonformen rechtlichen Rahmen genauso wie eine grunds\u00e4tzliche gesellschaftliche Debatte dar\u00fcber, welchen Stellenwert KI und Automatisierungen in grundrechtssensiblen Verfahren haben sollten und ob und wie sie halten k\u00f6nnen, was sie versprechen.
\nEine englischsprachige, k\u00fcrzere Version dieses Posts wurde auf TechPolicy Press ver\u00f6ffentlicht.
\n\n
Zitiervorschlag:
\nWelfens, Natalie; Flesch, Josefine; Quante, Bernard. Automatisierte Migrations- und Asylverwaltung? Der Gesetzesentwurf zum KIMVG auf dem Pr\u00fcfstand. FluchtforschungsBlog\u00a0 9. September 2026. https://fluchtforschung.net/automatisierte-migrations-und-asylverwaltung-der-gesetzesentwurf-zum-kimvg-auf-dem-pruefstand/. https://doi.org/10.59350/ydjk8-57942.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/ydjk8-57942","guid":"https://fluchtforschung.net/?p=15944","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1788912000,"rid":"206na-z0869","summary":"Der Ende Juli verabschiedete Regierungsentwurf des KI-Migrationsverwaltungsgesetzes (KIMVG) will eine breite Rechtsgrundlage f\u00fcr den Einsatz von K\u00fcnstlicher Intelligenz (KI) in Visa-, Aufenthalts- und Asylverfahren schaffen.","tags":["Deutsch","Forschung","Asylverwaltung","Digitalisierung","Gesetzgebung"],"title":"Automatisierte Migrations- und Asylverwaltung? Der Gesetzesentwurf zum KIMVG auf dem Pr\u00fcfstand","updated_at":1789458208,"url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/automatisierte-migrations-und-asylverwaltung-der-gesetzesentwurf-zum-kimvg-auf-dem-pruefstand/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Eden","given":"Terence","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-9069"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc","created":1788652800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Regular nonsense about tech and its effects \ud83d\ude43","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/shkspr","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/61ce553a-bafd-4aba-a952-d3bab5e85bcc/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/feed/DOI","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog","issn":"2753-1570","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"shkspr","status":"active","subfield":"1712","title":"Terence Eden's Blog","updated":1789385693,"use_api":false},"blog_name":"Terence Eden's Blog","blog_slug":"shkspr","content_html":"The HTML specification is old and, while there is beauty in longevity, there's an inevitable build-up of boondoggles and baggage. Some elements like have sadly been consigned to the dustbin of history - but there are still vestigial attributes just waiting to trip up the unwary.
If you're young, you may never have heard of Image Maps. Back in the bad-old-days, there weren't many good options for laying out a pixel-perfect HTML page. One option was to draw your website in an image editor, load it into a website as an image, and then make certain areas of the image clickable.
\nOne way to do this was to add the attribute ismap. It is only valid on element. Like so:
\n \n\nWhen you click on that image, you don't go to click.php - instead you go to click.php?12,34 where the two numbers represent the X and Y coordinates of where on the image you clicked. That's brilliant! Your server knows the size of the image - so if you click on the top half it can take you to one place, and if you click in the lower left corner you can go to another.
Brilliant!
\nExcept, of course, there's a catch!
\nThe specification of the
\nThe ismap attribute [\u2026] indicates by its presence that the element provides access to a server-side image map. This affects how events are handled on the corresponding a element.
Instead, the details are in 4.6.2 Links created by a and area elements:
\n\nset x to the distance in CSS pixels from the left edge of the image to the location of the click, and set y to the distance in CSS pixels from the top edge of the image to the location of the click.
Did you notice the gotcha?
\n\nthe distance in CSS pixels
This is not based on the actual size of the image! It is based on the layout
\nLet's suppose you have an image which is 100 x 100 pixels. It is added to the website like this:
\n
Click on this image and you'll see that your X and Y positions are based on the natural size of the image.
\nBut suppose you change the HTML to this:
\n
When you click on the image, the X & Y positions are not based on the actual size of the image; they're based on its layout size.
\nSuppose you use CSS to resize the image:
\n
The X and Y aren't based on the image's natural size, nor their declared height and width. Instead they're based on the size on screen determined by CSS.
\nAnd, of course, that's not necessarily your CSS! If the user has turned off style sheets, supplied their own, or uses an accessibility tool - the CSS size of the image might be vastly different from what you intended.
\nIf you have an image 100 pixels wide and you want people clicking on the left half to go to a different location to the people clicking on the right half, you might have server-side code which says:
\nif X < 50 :\n return page1.html\nelse\n return page2.html\nBut if the CSS has stretched, shrunk, skewed, or distorted the image then you have no way of knowing where the user clicked.
\nAs far as I can tell, this behaviour is the same in all major browsers.
\nBasically, what I'm saying is, don't use ismap unless you're absolutely sure that there will be no CSS shenanigans. Even then, it probably isn't worth the risk.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rnvhd-cxa43","guid":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rnvhd-cxa43","image":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/09/esoteric-html-ismap-vs-css//100.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789344000,"rid":"mxhph-mjj85","summary":"The HTML specification is old and, while there is beauty in longevity, there's an inevitable build-up of boondoggles and baggage. Some elements like have sadly been consigned to the dustbin of history - but there are still vestigial attributes just waiting to trip up the unwary. If you're young, you may never have heard of Image Maps.","tags":["Css","HTML5","Webdev"],"title":"Esoteric HTML - ismap vs CSS","updated_at":1789458208,"url":"https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/09/esoteric-html-ismap-vs-css/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Ko-AutorInnen"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"ad6b31bb-31f3-4277-bcf1-7bc662d83893","created":1740441600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Netzwerk Fluchtforschung ist ein multi-disziplin\u00e4res Netzwerk von Wissenschaftler*innen die zu jeglichen Aspekten von Flucht und Fl\u00fcchtlingsschutz forschen.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/fluchtforschung","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/ad6b31bb-31f3-4277-bcf1-7bc662d83893/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/","issn":null,"language":"deu","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"fluchtforschung","status":"active","subfield":"3312","title":"Netzwerk Fluchtforschung","updated":1789374179,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Netzwerk Fluchtforschung","blog_slug":"fluchtforschung","content_html":"Die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS) verspricht besonderen Schutz f\u00fcr unbegleitete minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete. Gleichzeitig h\u00e4ngt dieser Schutz davon ab, ob Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit \u00fcberhaupt anerkannt wird. Der Beitrag zeigt am Beispiel Maltas, wie Altersfeststellungen \u00fcber den Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen entscheiden und argumentiert, dass diese Dynamik mit der Umsetzung der neuen GEAS-Grenzverfahren k\u00fcnftig weiter an Bedeutung gewinnen k\u00f6nnte.
\n\n
Am 12. Juni 2026 begann die Anwendung der Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS), die einen tiefgreifenden Umbau der europ\u00e4ischen Asylpolitik markiert. Neue Screening- und Grenzverfahren sollen Asylverfahren beschleunigen, Zust\u00e4ndigkeiten harmonisieren und R\u00fcckf\u00fchrungen effizienter gestalten. Kommissionspr\u00e4sidentin Ursula von der Leyen sprach in diesem Zusammenhang von einem \"fresh start\". Insbesondere die Ausweitung geschlossener Grenzverfahren und die M\u00f6glichkeit l\u00e4ngerfristiger Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen an den EU-Au\u00dfengrenzen haben im Kontext der Reform erhebliche Kritik seitens Nichtregierungsorganisationen hervorgerufen. Gleichzeitig sieht die Reform f\u00fcr unbegleitete minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete besondere Verfahrensgarantien vor. Neben bereits bestehenden kinderrechtlichen Grunds\u00e4tzen wie der Ber\u00fccksichtigung des Kindeswohls z\u00e4hlt dazu insbesondere die weitgehende Ausnahme unbegleiteter Minderj\u00e4hriger von den neuen Asylgrenzverfahren. Damit pr\u00e4sentiert sich das neue GEAS nicht nur als Instrument migrationspolitischer Steuerung, sondern zugleich als ein System, das Effizienz und menschenrechtliche Standards miteinander verbinden will.
\nOb diese Schutzgarantien in der Praxis tats\u00e4chlich greifen, h\u00e4ngt jedoch von einer zentralen Voraussetzung ab: Minderj\u00e4hrige m\u00fcssen zun\u00e4chst \u00fcberhaupt als solche anerkannt werden. Das ist im Flucht- und Migrationsbereich kein neuer Umstand.\u00a0 Mit der Einf\u00fchrung der neuen Grenzverfahren ver\u00e4ndert sich jedoch die Tragweite dieser Entscheidung erheblich. W\u00e4hrend viele Schutzsuchende k\u00fcnftig Verfahren innerhalb geschlossener oder haft\u00e4hnlicher Einrichtungen durchlaufen sollen, sind unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige hiervon grunds\u00e4tzlich ausgenommen. Die Altersfeststellung ist dabei der entscheidende Faktor, ob Betroffene den neuen Grenzverfahren und den damit verbundenen Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen unterworfen werden. Damit r\u00fcckt sie ins Zentrum dieses Reformversprechens.
\n\u00c4hnliche Dynamiken zeigen sich bereits seit einiger Zeit am Beispiel Maltas. Als Inselstaat an der s\u00fcdlichen EU-Au\u00dfengrenze verfolgt Malta seit Jahren ein Grenzregime, das der Logik der neuen GEAS-Grenzverfahren \u00e4hnlich ist. Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen bilden dabei den Regelfall, w\u00e4hrend Ausnahmen insbesondere f\u00fcr als vulnerabel eingestufte Personen vorgesehen sind. Ob Betroffene Zugang zu diesen Ausnahmen erhalten, h\u00e4ngt ma\u00dfgeblich von Verfahren zur Feststellung von Vulnerabilit\u00e4t ab \u2013 etwa von der Anerkennung als Minderj\u00e4hrige*r. Dabei zeigen sowohl Berichte von NGOs als auch Gerichtsentscheidungen des Europ\u00e4ischen Gerichtshofs f\u00fcr Menschenrechte (EGMR) wiederholt, dass trotz dieser Schutzversprechen Minderj\u00e4hrige regelm\u00e4\u00dfig inhaftiert werden.
\nDer vorliegende Beitrag st\u00fctzt sich auf die Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Studie, die zwischen November 2024 und Januar 2025 auf Malta durchgef\u00fchrt wurde. Dabei bilden insgesamt sieben qualitative Interviews mit Rechtsanw\u00e4lt*innen und Sozialarbeiter*innen aus zivilgesellschaftlichen und staatlichen Organisationen, die in Malta mit Altersfeststellungen sowie dem Schutz unbegleiteter Minderj\u00e4hriger befasst sind, die Grundlage der Forschung, die anhand der qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse ausgewertet wurde. Die Interviews erm\u00f6glichen Einblicke in die Rolle der Altersfeststellung innerhalb des maltesischen Grenz- und Detentionssystems und deren Auswirkungen auf den Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen. Ausgehend von diesen Befunden wird anschlie\u00dfend diskutiert, welche Herausforderungen sich daraus f\u00fcr die Umsetzung der GEAS-Reform ergeben.
\n\u00a0
\nSchutzsuchende, die in Malta ankommen, werden seit Jahren unmittelbar nach ihrer Ankunft unterschiedlichen Formen der Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkung unterworfen. Dabei erfolgt eine grundlegende Unterscheidung zwischen Personen, die als vulnerabel gelten, und solchen, die dieser Kategorie nicht zugeordnet werden. W\u00e4hrend Familien mit Kindern sowie Personen, die als vulnerabel eingestuft werden \u2013 etwa Minderj\u00e4hrige \u2013 in sogenannten Open Centers untergebracht werden, bleiben alleinreisende M\u00e4nner in der Regel in geschlossenen Haftzentren, sogenannten Detention-Centern. Diese Praxis wurde sowohl von den interviewten Fachkr\u00e4ften als auch in Berichten von NGOs und internationalen Organisationen beschrieben.
\nBereits hier, direkt nach Ankunft, entscheidet die erste Altersfeststellung damit unmittelbar dar\u00fcber, ob unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige inhaftiert werden. Nach Aussagen der interviewten Fachkr\u00e4fte werden Jugendliche, deren Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit nicht direkt als \"offensichtlich\" wahrgenommen wird, zun\u00e4chst wie Erwachsene behandelt und in geschlossenen Einrichtungen untergebracht. Diese Praxis wurde sowohl von NGO-Mitarbeitenden als auch von staatlichen Akteur*innen best\u00e4tigt. Damit weicht die beschriebene Praxis von zentralen kinderrechtlichen Grunds\u00e4tzen ab. Sowohl die \"presumption of minority\" als auch der \"benefit of the doubt\" verlangen, dass Personen bei Zweifeln \u00fcber ihr Alter zun\u00e4chst als minderj\u00e4hrig behandelt werden, bis ihre Vollj\u00e4hrigkeit zweifelsfrei festgestellt wurde. Die in den Interviews und Berichten geschilderte Praxis deutet hingegen darauf hin, dass in Malta h\u00e4ufig zun\u00e4chst von einer Vollj\u00e4hrigkeit ausgegangen wird. Aus kinderrechtlicher Perspektive wird damit die grundlegende Schutzlogik dieser Prinzipien faktisch umgekehrt.
\nDie Inhaftierung hat f\u00fcr die Betroffenen erhebliche Auswirkungen. Maltesische Detention-Center sind rigide Haftanstalten, in denen Schutzsuchende teilweise \u00fcber viele Monate unter stark restriktiven Bedingungen festgehalten werden. Sowohl die Interviewteilnehmer*innen als auch NGO-Berichte beschreiben \u00fcberf\u00fcllte Zellen mit zahlreichen Personen auf engem Raum, eingeschr\u00e4nktem Zugang zu hygienischer Versorgung sowie dem Konfiszieren pers\u00f6nlicher Gegenst\u00e4nde wie Mobiltelefonen oder eigener Kleidung. Stattdessen werden Betroffene mit Einheitskleidung und Identifikationsnummern versehen, was von Fachkr\u00e4ften als Verlust pers\u00f6nlicher Identit\u00e4t und Entindividualisierung eingeordnet wird. Zudem werden Minderj\u00e4hrige bei Transfers oder externen Terminen in Handschellen vorgef\u00fchrt. Generell sind die Zugangsm\u00f6glichkeiten f\u00fcr Anw\u00e4lt*innen stark eingeschr\u00e4nkt, w\u00e4hrend Sozialarbeiter*innen von NGOs \u00fcberhaupt keinen Zugang erhalten. Die einzige Kontaktm\u00f6glichkeit besteht \u00fcber ein Telefon, welches gerade nach Ankunft von neuen Schutzsuchenden teils bis zu zwei Wochen blockiert werde. Die schlechten Bedingungen sowie die lange Unsicherheit \u00fcber den eigenen Status w\u00e4hrend laufender Verfahren f\u00fchren dabei teilweise zu erheblichen psychischen Belastungen und verst\u00e4rken bestehende Traumatisierungen, wie Studien zeigen konnten.
\nGleichzeitig verweisen insbesondere die Interviews mit nicht-staatlichen Akteur*innen auf erhebliche Zweifel hinsichtlich der Verl\u00e4sslichkeit der Altersfeststellungsverfahren selbst. Nach Aussagen mehrerer Befragter spielen subjektive Einsch\u00e4tzungen von Aussehen, Verhalten oder Auftreten der Betroffenen eine wichtige Rolle innerhalb des Verfahrens. Annahmen dar\u00fcber, wie sich Minderj\u00e4hrige \"typischerweise\" verhalten oder aussehen sollten, nehmen dabei ebenso Einfluss auf Entscheidungen wie westlich gepr\u00e4gte Vorstellungen \u00fcber Biografie, Familienstrukturen oder Geburtstage. Diese Ergebnisse korrespondieren mit Studien aus anderen europ\u00e4ischen L\u00e4ndern, z.B. Gro\u00dfbritannien, Norwegen oder Deutschland, die das Altersfeststellungsverfahren grunds\u00e4tzlich als subjektiv kritisieren. Hinzu kommt in Malta der Einsatz medizinischer Verfahren wie sogenannter Knochentests, obwohl deren geringe Aussagekraft seit Jahren wissenschaftlich belegt ist.
\nIm Falle einer Klassifizierung als vollj\u00e4hrig, besteht in Malta die M\u00f6glichkeit eines Widerspruchs innerhalb von drei Tagen. Mehrere Interviewpartner*innen beschrieben allerdings, dass genau diese Widerspr\u00fcche der h\u00e4ufigste Grund f\u00fcr lange Detention-Aufenthalte von Minderj\u00e4hrigen seien, da sich diese Verfahren \u00fcber Monate hinziehen k\u00f6nnen. In dieser Zeit verbleiben die Betroffenen weiterhin in den geschlossenen Einrichtungen. Einzelne Fachkr\u00e4fte berichteten von F\u00e4llen, in denen Minderj\u00e4hrige erst nach acht Monaten offiziell als Kinder anerkannt wurden.
\nEinen Hauptkritikpunkt am Altersfeststellungssystem sahen mehrere Teilnehmer*innen in der fehlenden institutionellen Unabh\u00e4ngigkeit innerhalb des Systems. Kritisch hervorgehoben wurde insbesondere die Rolle der Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS), die sowohl Schutz- und Betreuungsfunktionen gegen\u00fcber unbegleiteten Minderj\u00e4hrigen \u00fcbernimmt als auch \u00fcber den Ausgang der Altersfeststellungsverfahren entscheidet. Mehrere Befragte beschrieben diese Doppelrolle als strukturellen Interessenkonflikt. Zudem verwiesen Interviews darauf, dass verschiedene staatliche Akteur*innen und Beh\u00f6rden innerhalb desselben institutionellen Gef\u00fcges eng miteinander verflochten sind, wodurch unabh\u00e4ngige Kontrolle und wirksame Beschwerdemechanismen zus\u00e4tzlich erschwert werden.
\nSchlie\u00dflich deuten die Interviews darauf hin, dass die Altersfeststellung in Malta nicht ausschlie\u00dflich als administratives Verfahren wahrgenommen wird. Fachkr\u00e4fte beschrieben wiederholt rassistische und entw\u00fcrdigende Praktiken innerhalb der Haftzentren. So werde etwa im sogenannten \"Minderj\u00e4hrigenbereich\" gezielt Zeichentrickfilme f\u00fcr Kleinkinder im Fernsehen gezeigt, um Jugendliche, die angeben minderj\u00e4hrig zu sein, l\u00e4cherlich zu machen. Mehrere Befragte hatten den Eindruck, dass die Bedingungen gezielt abschreckend gestaltet w\u00fcrden und Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit nicht als Anlass f\u00fcr besonderen Schutz, sondern als potenzieller Versuch wahrgenommen werde, das System auszunutzen.
\n\n
Mit der neuen GEAS-Reform baut die EU die Nutzung beschleunigter Grenzverfahren innerhalb geschlossener beziehungsweise haft\u00e4hnlicher Einrichtungen erheblich aus. Schutzsuchende sollen k\u00fcnftig bereits unmittelbar nach ihrer Ankunft ein bis zu siebent\u00e4giges Screening-Verfahren durchlaufen, in dem Identit\u00e4t, Gesundheitszustand, Sicherheitsaspekte und potenzielle Vulnerabilit\u00e4ten festgestellt werden. Gleichzeitig findet dieses Verfahren weitgehend innerhalb geschlossener Strukturen statt, in denen der Zugang unabh\u00e4ngiger Akteur*innen erheblich eingeschr\u00e4nkt sein kann. Gerade unter solchen Bedingungen stellt sich die Frage, wie Schutzbedarfe \u00fcberhaupt verl\u00e4sslich identifiziert werden sollen.
\nIm Anschluss sieht die Reform f\u00fcr einen Teil der Schutzsuchenden Asylverfahren an den EU-Au\u00dfengrenzen vor, bei denen sie w\u00e4hrenddessen rechtlich als \"nicht eingereist\" gelten. Die sogenannte \"Fiktion der Nichteinreise\" erm\u00f6glicht es, diese Verfahren an den Au\u00dfengrenzen durchzuf\u00fchren, ohne dass die betroffenen Personen rechtlich als in das Hoheitsgebiet eingereist gelten. In der Praxis schafft sie damit die Voraussetzung f\u00fcr Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen, denn Grenzverfahren, die eine Fiktion der Nichteinreise voraussetzen, sind \"ohne Ma\u00dfnahmen mit freiheitsentziehendem Charakter nicht vorstellbar\". Betroffen sind insbesondere Schutzsuchende aus Herkunftsstaaten mit niedrigen EU-weiten Anerkennungsquoten sowie Personen, denen eine Einreise \u00fcber sogenannte \"sichere Drittstaaten\" zugeschrieben wird.
\nZwar sieht die Reform vor, dass unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige grunds\u00e4tzlich von den neuen Grenzverfahren ausgenommen bleiben. In der Praxis greift dieser Schutz jedoch nur dann, wenn Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit zuvor anerkannt wurde. Damit erh\u00e4lt die Altersfeststellung innerhalb des GEAS eine \u00e4hnliche Schl\u00fcsselfunktion wie bereits heute im maltesischen Grenzregime. Sie entscheidet dar\u00fcber, wer Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen erh\u00e4lt \u2013 und wer weiterhin den Logiken beschleunigter Grenzverfahren und Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen unterworfen bleibt.
\nHinzu kommt, dass die Reform zahlreiche Fragen hinsichtlich der konkreten Ausgestaltung der Altersfeststellung offenl\u00e4sst. Zwar betont das GEAS multidisziplin\u00e4re Verfahren sowie den \"benefit of the doubt\", zugleich fehlen jedoch klare Vorgaben dazu, wie Betroffene w\u00e4hrend laufender Verfahren untergebracht werden sollen, wie unabh\u00e4ngige Kontrolle gew\u00e4hrleistet werden kann oder welche Schutzmechanismen greifen, solange Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit noch nicht offiziell anerkannt wurde. Gerade die Erfahrungen aus Malta verdeutlichen jedoch, welche erheblichen Konsequenzen diese Phase der Unsicherheit f\u00fcr Betroffene haben kann.
\n\n
Die Erfahrungen aus Malta legen nahe, dass mit der Ausweitung beschleunigter Grenzverfahren jene Vulnerabilit\u00e4tskategorien an Bedeutung gewinnen, die besondere Schutzrechte vermitteln. Schutz wird dabei nicht von vornherein gew\u00e4hrt, sondern setzt zun\u00e4chst voraus, dass Personen administrativ als schutzbed\u00fcrftig anerkannt werden. Gerade der Altersfeststellung kommt dabei eine zentrale Bedeutung zu, da sie dar\u00fcber entscheidet, ob Betroffene Zugang zu Schutzmechanismen erhalten oder den Grenzverfahren und den damit verbundenen Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen unterworfen bleiben.
\nDiese Entwicklung kann eine paradoxe Dynamik hervorrufen. Je st\u00e4rker Schutzrechte an die Anerkennung spezifischer Vulnerabilit\u00e4ten gekn\u00fcpft werden, desto st\u00e4rker geraten diese Kategorien selbst unter Rechtfertigungs- und Verdachtsdruck. Altersfeststellungen dienen weniger der Feststellung objektiver Tatsachen als vielmehr der Entscheidung dar\u00fcber, \"wer schutzw\u00fcrdig ist\" und wer als \"Betr\u00fcger\" erscheint, der das System missbraucht. Die Erfahrungen aus Malta lassen sich vor diesem Hintergrund als Beispiel daf\u00fcr lesen, wie Vulnerabilit\u00e4t nicht nur zur Grundlage von Schutz, sondern zugleich zu einem Gegenstand migrationspolitischer Kontrolle werden kann.
\nMit der Umsetzung des neuen GEAS d\u00fcrfte die Bedeutung dieser Dynamik weiter zunehmen. Je gr\u00f6\u00dfer die rechtlichen Unterschiede zwischen denjenigen sind, die als schutzbed\u00fcrftig anerkannt werden, und denjenigen, die den Grenzverfahren unterworfen bleiben, desto folgenreicher werden die Verfahren, die \u00fcber diese Einordnung entscheiden. Damit stellt sich die grunds\u00e4tzliche Frage, inwieweit Schutzklauseln tats\u00e4chlich geeignet sind, die Ausweitung restriktiver Grenzverfahren menschenrechtlich abzusichern. Denn je st\u00e4rker Freiheitsbeschr\u00e4nkungen durch Ausnahmen f\u00fcr bestimmte Gruppen legitimiert werden, desto entscheidender wird, ob diese Gruppen auch tats\u00e4chlich zuverl\u00e4ssig identifiziert werden k\u00f6nnen. Andernfalls besteht die Gefahr, dass die vorgesehenen Ausnahmen f\u00fcr vulnerable Personen zur Legitimation eines restriktiven Grenzregimes beitragen, w\u00e4hrend der tats\u00e4chliche Zugang zu diesen Schutzrechten von vorgelagerten Verwaltungsentscheidungen abh\u00e4ngt.
\n\n
Zitiervorschlag:
\nSilber, David. Altersfeststellung als Zugangsschwelle zu Schutz: Lehren aus Malta f\u00fcr das neue GEAS. FluchtforschungsBlog 2. September 2026. https://fluchtforschung.net/altersfeststellung-als-zugangsschwelle-zu-schutz-lehren-aus-malta-fuer-das-neue-geas/. https://doi.org/10.59350/3fxks-51f10.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/3fxks-51f10","guid":"https://fluchtforschung.net/?p=15937","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1788307200,"rid":"9cg2x-f8v76","summary":"Die Reform des Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS) verspricht besonderen Schutz f\u00fcr unbegleitete minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete. Gleichzeitig h\u00e4ngt dieser Schutz davon ab, ob Minderj\u00e4hrigkeit \u00fcberhaupt anerkannt wird.","tags":["Deutsch","Forschung","EU-Au\u00dfengrenze","Gemeinsamen Europ\u00e4ischen Asylsystems (GEAS)","Unbegleitete Minderj\u00e4hrige Gefl\u00fcchtete"],"title":"Altersfeststellung als Zugangsschwelle zu Schutz: Lehren aus Malta f\u00fcr das neue GEAS","updated_at":1789458205,"url":"https://fluchtforschung.net/altersfeststellung-als-zugangsschwelle-zu-schutz-lehren-aus-malta-fuer-das-neue-geas/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Peroni","given":"Silvio"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"OpenCitations Team"}],"community_id":"c8efeda5-cd52-472d-9537-6915b9c62e34","created":1681862400,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"The blog of the OpenCitations Infrastructure","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/opencitations","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/c8efeda5-cd52-472d-9537-6915b9c62e34/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"opencitations","status":"active","subfield":"1802","title":"OpenCitations blog","updated":1789379379,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"OpenCitations blog","blog_slug":"opencitations","content_html":"\"Director's cut\" is a new bimonthly blog series launched on the OpenCitations blog to share the Director's point of view on the hidden work happening within our infrastructure.
\nIn our roadmap, informed by a community survey we conducted to address the needs of our users (and potential users), we promised to focus, among other things, on strengthening backend development to foster better semantic interoperability with other research infrastructures. Indeed, such a topic is gaining momentum in recent months and has generated a lot of useful discussion within the community interested in open scholarly infrastructures (OSIs) \u2013 e.g. with the last and recent event about ORION-DBs. As anticipated in our annual report, we have spent significant effort over the past two years reengineering OpenCitations entire technical infrastructure to better comply with the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI).\u00a0
\nAmong the results of our efforts, we have worked on devising a general framework, introduced in a paper, to define the architecture of the computational unit of an OSI grounded in the POSI, defining what we think are the core principles and technical features that should be guaranteed \u2013 spoiler: separation of operational domains, orchestration, scalability, observability, automation, and workflow portability. While useful for informing and documenting the choices we made in this context, sharing this framework also helps other OSIs in strengthening their scholarly sovereignty. To enable OSIs and other actors to continue the discussion on the content of the paper introducing the framework, we have created a space on PREreview to favour an open discussion.
\nThe new OpenCitations technical infrastructure has allowed us to improve semantic interoperability with other research infrastructures by adopting the Scientific Knowledge Graph \u2013 Interoperability Framework (SKG-IF). SKG-IF is an extensible framework, created in the context of an RDA working group, that enables the exchange of data about core research entities included in scientific knowledge graphs, thus providing a standardised approach to model a minimal set of scholarly data and enabling one to mash up data from different sources to support diverse applications. In particular, SKG-IF includes a data model, expresses data in JSON-LD, and provides an OpenAPI specification for enabling requesting, searching, and filtering scholarly data.
\nOver the past week, we released the OpenCitations implementation of the SKG-IF API, now available in production. This new API covers requests for all the entities we describe in our data (research products, persons, organisations, and venues). In contrast, other SKG-IF entities (grants, data sources, and topics) may be available in other OSIs that enable access to their data via new SKG-IF API endpoints. From a technical perspective, the OpenCitations SKG-IF API uses the new version of RAMOSE, a tool developed and maintained by OpenCitations to create REST APIs over SPARQL endpoints, which also provides a dedicated SKG-IF module (briefly introduced in a new paper and in its documentation) to simplify adoption by RDF scholarly data sources that want to provide an SKG-IF API for accessing their data.
\nThe adoption of such technologies enables, in principle, the creation of a federation of distributed open research information sources that, by adopting SKG-IF, can provide their data (which can be expressed, internally to an infrastructure, as knowledge graphs, stored in relational databases, etc.) without the need to change their internal data model and technologies. What is needed is an SKG-IF Open REST API endpoint that maps the internal data model into SKG-IF. This choice preserves each OSI's local autonomy and sovereignty, which is usually maintained by independent organisations with their own governance, and avoids costly redesign of established systems.
\nAt OpenCitations, we are actively involved in the GRAPHIA project, where we are participating in an experiment that aims to create a federated infrastructure for SSH knowledge graphs, using SKG-IF as the interoperability contract for the federation. We will share more about the results of this experiment in one of the upcoming issues of this blog series.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/wvdh7-efj72","guid":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/?p=4355","image":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/files/2026/09/Implementing-Semantic-Interoperability-1.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789344000,"rid":"9jrdz-4tn94","summary":"\"Director's cut\" is a new bimonthly blog series launched on the OpenCitations blog to share the Director's point of view on the hidden work happening within our infrastructure.","tags":["Bibliographic References","Director's Cut","Open Citations","OpenCitations","OpenCitations Indexes"],"title":"Director's cut #1: implementing semantic interoperability","updated_at":1789458205,"url":"https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/4355","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":1713312000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/tritonstation","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://tritonstation.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tritonstation","status":"active","subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":1789075797,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"The week of June 5, 2017, we held a workshop on dwarf galaxies and the dark matter problem. The workshop was attended by many leaders in the field – giants of dwarf galaxy research. It was held on the campus of Case Western Reserve University and supported by the John Templeton Foundation. It resulted in many fascinating discussions which I can’t possibly begin to share in full here, but I’ll say a few words.
\nDwarf galaxies are among the most dark matter dominated objects in the universe. Or, stated more properly, they exhibit the largest mass discrepancies. This makes them great places to test theories of dark matter and modified gravity. By the end, we had come up with a few important tests for both \u039bCDM and MOND. A few of these we managed to put on a white board. These are hardly a complete list, but provide a basis for discussion.
\n
UFDs in field: Over the past few years, a number of extremely tiny dwarf galaxies have been identified as satellites of the Milky Way galaxy. These “ultrafaint dwarfs” are vaguely defined as being fainter than 100,000 solar luminosities, with the smallest examples having only a few hundred stars. This is absurdly small by galactic standards, having the stellar content of individual star clusters within the Milky Way. Indeed, it is not obvious to me that all of the ultrafaint dwarfs deserve to be recognized as dwarf galaxies, as some may merely be fragmentary portions of the Galactic stellar halo composed of stars coincident in phase space. Nevertheless, many may well be stellar systems external to the Milky Way that orbit it as dwarf satellites.
\nThat multitudes of minuscule dark matter halos exist is a fundamental prediction of the \u039bCDM cosmogony. These should often contain ultrafaint dwarf galaxies, and not only as satellites of giant galaxies like the Milky Way. Indeed, one expects to see many ultrafaints in the “field” beyond the orbital vicinity of the Milky Way where we have found them so far. These are predicted to exist in great numbers, and contain uniformly old stars. The “old stars” portion of the prediction stems from the reionization of the universe impeding star formation in the smallest dark matter halos. Upcoming surveys like LSST should provide a test of this prediction.
\nFrom an empirical perspective, I do expect that we will continue to discover galaxies of ever lower luminosity and surface brightness. In the field, I expect that these will be predominantly gas rich dwarfs like Leo P rather than gas-free, old stellar systems like the satellite ultrafaints. My expectation is an extrapolation of past experience, not a theory-specific prediction.
\nNo Large Cores: Many of the simulators present at the workshop showed that if the energy released by supernovae was well directed, it could reshape the steep (‘cuspy’) interior density profiles of dark matter halos into something more like the shallow (‘cored’) interiors that are favored by data. I highlight the if because I remain skeptical that supernova energy couples as strongly as required and assumed (basically 100%). Even assuming favorable feedback, there seemed to be broad (in not unanimous) consensus among the simulators present that at sufficiently low masses, not enough stars would form to produce the requisite energy. Consequently, low mass halos should not have shallow cores, but instead retain their primordial density cusps. Hence clear measurement of a large core in a low mass dwarf galaxy (stellar mass < 1 million solar masses) would be a serious problem. Unfortunately, I’m not clear that we quantified “large,” but something more than a few hundred parsecs should qualify.
\nRadial Orbit for Crater 2: Several speakers highlighted the importance of the recently discovered dwarf satellite Crater 2. This object has a velocity dispersion that is unexpectedly low in \u039bCDM, but was predicted by MOND. The “fix” in \u039bCDM is to imagine that Crater 2 has suffered a large amount of tidal stripping by a close passage of the Milky Way. Hence it is predicted to be on a radial orbit (one that basically just plunges in and out). This can be tested by measuring the proper motion of its stars with Hubble Space Telescope, for which there exists a recently approved program.
\nDM Substructures: As noted above, there must exist numerous low mass dark matter halos in the cold dark matter cosmogony. These may be detected as substructure in the halos of larger galaxies by means of their gravitational lensing even if they do not contain dwarf galaxies. Basically, a lumpy dark matter halo bends light in subtly but detectably different ways from a smooth halo.
\nNo Wide Binaries in UFDs: As a consequence of dynamical friction against the background dark matter, binary stars cannot remain at large separations over a Hubble time: their orbits should decay. In the absence of dark matter, this should not happen (it cannot if there is nowhere for the orbital energy to go, like into dark matter particles). Thus the detection of a population of widely separated binary stars would be problematic. Indeed, Pavel Kroupa argued that the apparent absence of strong dynamical friction already excludes particle dark matter as it is usually imagined.
\nShort dynamical times/common mergers: This is related to dynamical friction. In the hierarchical cosmogony of cold dark matter, mergers of halos (and the galaxies they contain) must be frequent and rapid. Dark matter halos are dynamically sticky, soaking up the orbital energy and angular momentum between colliding galaxies to allow them to stick and merge. Such mergers should go to completion on fairly short timescales (a mere few hundred million years).
\nA few distinctive predictions for MOND were also identified.
\n
Tangential Orbit for Crater 2: In contrast to \u039bCDM, we expect that the `feeble giant’ Crater 2 could not survive a close encounter with the Milky Way. Even at its rather large distance of 120 kpc from the Milky Way, it is so feeble that it is not immune from the external field of its giant host. Consequently, we expect that Crater 2 must be on a more nearly circular orbit, and not on a radial orbit as suggested in \u039bCDM. The orbit does not need to be perfectly circular of course, but is should be more tangential than radial.
\nThis provides a nice test that distinguishes between the two theories. Either the orbit of Crater 2 is more radial or more tangential. Bear in mind that Crater 2 already constitutes a problem for \u039bCDM. What we’re discussing here is how to close what is basically a loophole whereby we can excuse an otherwise unanticipated result in \u039bCDM.
\nEFE: The External Field Effect is a unique prediction of MOND that breaks the strong equivalence principle. There is already clear if tentative evidence for the EFE in the dwarf satellite galaxies around Andromeda. There is no equivalent to the EFE in \u039bCDM.
\nI believe the question mark was added on the white board to permit the logical if unlikely possibility that one could write a MOND theory with an undetectably small EFE.
\nPosition of UFDs on RAR: We chose to avoid making the radial acceleration relation (RAR) a focus of the meeting – there was quite enough to talk about as it was – but it certainly came up. The ultrafaint dwarfs sit “too high” on the RAR, an apparent problem for MOND. Indeed, when I first worked on this subject with Joe Wolf, I initially thought this was a fatal problem for MOND.
\nMy initial thought was wrong. This is not a problem for MOND. The RAR applies to systems in dynamical equilibrium. There is a criterion in MOND to check whether this essential condition may be satisfied. Basically all of the ultrafaints flunk this test. There is no reason to think they are in dynamical equilibrium, so no reason to expect that they should be exactly on the RAR.
\nSome advocates of \u039bCDM seemed to think this was a fudge, a lame excuse morally equivalent to the fudges made in \u039bCDM that its critics complain about. This is a false equivalency that reminds me of this cartoon:
\n
The ultrafaints are a handful of the least-well measured galaxies on the RAR. Before we obsess about these, it is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation for the more numerous, much better measured galaxies that establish the RAR in the first place. MOND does this. \u039bCDM does not. Holding one theory to account for the least reliable of measurements before holding another to account for everything up to that point is like, well, like the cartoon… I could put an NGC number to each of the lines Bugs draws in the sand.
\nLong dynamical times/less common mergers: Unlike \u039bCDM, dynamical friction should be relatively ineffective in MOND. It lacks the large halos of dark matter that act as invisible catchers’ mitts to make galaxies stick and merge. Personally, I do not think this is a great test, because we are a long way from understanding dynamical friction in MOND.
\nNon-evolution with redshift: If the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation and the RAR are indeed the consequence of MOND, then their form is fixed by the theory. Consequently, their slope shouldn’t evolve with time. Conceivably their normalization might (e.g., the value of a0 could in principle evolve). Some recent data for high redshift galaxies place constraints on such evolution, but reports on these data are greatly exaggerated.
\nThese are just a few of the topics discussed at the workshop, and all of those are only a few of the issues that matter to the bigger picture. While the workshop was great in every respect, perhaps the best thing was that it got people from different fields/camps/perspectives talking. That is progress.
\nI am grateful for progress, but I must confess that to me it feels excruciatingly slow. Models of galaxy formation in the context of \u039bCDM have made credible steps forward in addressing some of the phenomenological issues that concern me. Yet they still seem to me to be very far from where they need to be. In particular, there seems to be no engagement with the fundamental question I have posed here before, and that I posed at the beginning of the workshop: Why does MOND get any predictions right?
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/4bkwq-4gg89","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=6128","image":"https://tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/workshop_photo.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1497398400,"rid":"e895s-0s622","summary":"The week of June 5, 2017, we held a workshop on dwarf galaxies and the dark matter problem. The workshop was attended by many leaders in the field \u2013 giants of dwarf galaxy research. It was held on the campus of Case Western Reserve University and supported by the John Templeton Foundation.","tags":["Dark Matter","Galaxy Formation","MOND"],"title":"Dwarf Galaxies on the Shoulders of Giants","updated_at":1789458200,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2017/06/14/dwarf-galaxies-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":1713312000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/tritonstation","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://tritonstation.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tritonstation","status":"active","subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":1789075797,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"It has been twenty years since we coined the phrase NFW halo to describe the cuspy halos that emerge from dark matter simulations of structure formation. Since that time, observations have persistently contradicted this fundamental prediction of the cold dark matter cosmogony. There have, of course, been some theorists who cling to the false hope that somehow it is the data to blame and not a shortcoming of the model.
\nThat this false hope has persisted in some corners for so long is a tribute to the power of ideas over facts and the influence that strident personalities wield over the sort objective evaluation we allegedly value in science. This history is a bit like this skit by Arsenio Hall. Hall is pestered by someone calling, demanding Thelma. Just substitute “cusps” for “Thelma” and that pretty much sums it up.
\nAll during this time, I have never questioned the results of the simulations. While it is a logical possibility that they screwed something up, I don’t think that is likely. Moreover, it is inappropriate to pour derision on one’s scientific colleagues just because you disagree. Such disagreements are part and parcel of the scientific method. We don’t need to be jerks about it.
\nBut some people are jerks about it. There are some – and merely some, certainly not all – theorists who make a habit of pouring scorn on the data for not showing what they want it to show. And that’s what it really boils down to. They’re so sure that their models are right that any disagreement with data must be the fault of the data.
\nThis has been going on so long that in 1996, George Efstathiou was already making light of it in his colleagues, in the form of the Frenk Principle:
\n\n“If the Cold Dark Matter Model does not agree with observations, there must be physical processes, no matter how bizarre or unlikely, that can explain the discrepancy.”
There are even different flavors of the Strong Frenk Principle:
\n\n1: “The physical processes must be the most bizarre and unlikely.”
\n2: “If we are incapable of finding any physical processes to explain the discrepancy between CDM models and observations, then observations are wrong.”
In the late ’90s, blame was frequently placed on beam smearing. The resolution of 21 cm data cubes at that time was typically 13 to 30 arcseconds, which made it challenging to resolve the shape of some rotation curves. Some but not all. Nevertheless, beam smearing became the default excuse to pretend the observations were wrong.
\nThis persisted for a number of years, until we obtained better data – long slit optical spectra with 1 or 2 arcsecond resolution. These data did show up a few cases where beam smearing had been a legitimate concern. It also confirmed the rotation curves of many other galaxies where it had not been.
\nSo they made up a different systematic error. Beam smearing was no longer an issue, but longslit data only gave a slice along the major axis, not the whole velocity field. So it was imagined that we observers had placed the slits in the wrong place, thereby missing the signature of the cusps.
\nThis was obviously wrong from the start. It boiled down to an assertion that Vera Rubin didn’t know how to measure rotation curves. If that were true, we wouldn’t have dark matter in the first place. The real lesson of this episode was to never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. People believed one thing about the data quality when it agreed with their preconceptions (rotation curves prove dark matter!) and another when it didn’t (rotation curves don’t constrain cusps!)
\n
So, back to the telescope. Now we obtained 2D velocity fields at optical resolution (a few arcseconds). When you do this, there is no where for a cusp to hide. Such a dense concentration makes a pronounced mark on the velocity field.
\n
To give a real world example (O’Neil et. al 2000; yes, we could already do this in the previous millennium), here is a galaxy with a cusp and one without:
\n
It is easy to see the signature of a cusp in a 2D velocity field. You can’t miss it. It stands out like a sore thumb.
\nThe absence of cusps is typical of dwarf and low surface brightness galaxies. In the vast majority of these, we see approximately solid body rotation, as in UGC 12695. This is incredibly reproducible. See, for example, the case of UGC 4325 (Fig. 3 of Bosma 2004), where six independent observations employing three distinct observational techniques all obtain the same result.
\nThere are cases where we do see a cusp. These are inevitably associated with a dense concentration of stars, like a bulge component. There is no need to invoke dark matter cusps when the luminous matter makes the same prediction. Worse, it becomes ambiguous: you can certainly fit a cuspy halo by reducing the fractional contribution of the stars. But this only succeeds by having the dark matter mimic the light distribution. Maybe such galaxies do have cuspy halos, but the data do not require it.
\nAll this was settled a decade ago. Most of the field has moved on, with many theorists trying to simulate the effects of baryonic feedback. An emerging consensus is that such feedback can transform cusps into cores on scales that matter to real galaxies. The problem then moves to finding observational tests of feedback: does it work in the real universe as it must do in the simulations in order to get the “right” result?
\nNot everyone has kept up with the times. A recent preprint tries to spin the story that non-circular motions make it hard to obtain the true circular velocity curve, and therefore we can still get away with cusps. Like all good misinformation, there is a grain of truth to this. It can indeed be challenging to get the precisely correct 1D rotation curve V(R) in a way that properly accounts for non-circular motions. Challenging but not impossible. Some of the most intense arguments I’ve had have been over how to do this right. But these were arguments among perfectionists about details. We agreed on the basic result.
\n
High quality data paint a clear and compelling picture. The data show an incredible amount of order in the form of Renzo’s rule, the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, and the Radial Acceleration Relation. Such order cannot emerge from a series of systematic errors. Models that fail to reproduce these observed relations can be immediately dismissed as incorrect.
\nThe high degree of order in the data has been known for decades, and yet many modeling papers simply ignore these inconvenient facts. Perhaps the authors of such papers are simply unaware of them. Worse, some seem to be fooling themselves through the liberal application of the Frenk’s Principle. This places a notional belief system (dark matter halos must have cusps) above observational reality. This attitude has more in common with religious faith than with the scientific method.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/87h3p-z8g14","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=6404","image":"https://tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/army.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1499385600,"rid":"sepqn-ym302","summary":"It has been twenty years since we coined the phrase NFW halo to describe the cuspy halos that emerge from dark matter simulations of structure formation. Since that time, observations have persistently contradicted this fundamental prediction of the cold dark matter cosmogony.","tags":["Dark Matter","Rotation Curves"],"title":"Ain't no cusps here","updated_at":1789458192,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2017/07/07/aint-no-cusps-here/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/051fd9666","name":"Case Western Reserve University"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"McGaugh","given":"Stacy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9762-0980"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f","created":1713312000,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/tritonstation","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/82262dc6-3666-40e2-939a-d4d637d0fd8f/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://tritonstation.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://tritonstation.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"tritonstation","status":"active","subfield":"3103","title":"Triton Station","updated":1789075797,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Triton Station","blog_slug":"tritonstation","content_html":"I have not posted here in a while. This is mostly due to the fact that I have a job that is both engaging and demanding. I started this blog as a way to blow off steam, but I realized this mostly meant ranting about those fools at the academy! of whom there are indeed plenty. These are reality based rants, but I’ve got better things to do.
\nAs it happens, I’ve come down with a bug that keeps me at home but leaves just enough energy to read and type, but little else. This is an excellent recipe for inciting a rant. Reading the Washington Post article on delayed gratification in children brings it on.
\nIt is not really the article that gets me, let alone the scholarly paper on which it is based. I have not read the latter, and have no intention of doing so. I hope its author has thought through the interpretation better than is implied by what I see in the WaPo article. That is easy for me to believe; my own experience is that what academics say to the press has little to do with what eventually appears in the press – sometimes even inverting its meaning outright. (At one point I was quoted as saying that dark matter experimentalists should give up, when what I had said was that it was important to pursue these experiments to their logical conclusion, but that we also needed to think about what would constitute a logical conclusion if dark matter remains undetected.)
\nSo I am at pains to say that my ire is not directed at the published academic article. In this case it isn’t even directed at the article in the WaPo, regardless of whether it is a fair representation of the academic work or not. My ire is directed entirely at the interpretation of a single graph, which I am going to eviscerate.
\nThe graph in question shows the delay time measured in psychology experiments over the years. It is an attempt to measure self-control in children. When presented with a marshmallow but told they may have two marshmallows if they wait for it, how long can they hold out? This delayed gratification is thought to be a measure of self-control that correlates positively with all manners of subsequent development. Which may indeed be true. But what can we learn from this particular graph?
\n
The graph plots the time delay measured from different experiments against the date of the experiment. Every point (plotted as a marshmallow – cute! I don’t object to that) represents an average over many children tested at that time. Apparently they have been “corrected” to account for the age of the children (one gets better at delayed gratification as one matures) which is certainly necessary, but it also raises a flag. How was the correction made? Such details can matter.
\nHowever, my primary concern is more basic. Do the data, as shown, actually demonstrate a trend?
\nTo answer this question for yourself, the first thing you have to be able to do is mentally remove the line. That big black bold line that so nicely connects the dots. Perhaps it is a legitimate statistical fit of some sort. Or perhaps it is boldface to [mis]guide the eye. Doesn’t matter. Ignore it. Look at the data.
\nThe first thing I notice about the data are the outliers – in this case, 3 points at very high delay times. These do not follow the advertised trend, or any trend. Indeed, they seem in no way related to the other data. It is as if a different experiment had been conducted.
\nWhen confronted with outlying data, one has a couple of choices. If we accept that these data are correct and from the same experiment, then there is no trend: the time of delayed gratification could be pretty much anything from a minute to half an hour. However, the rest of the data do clump together, so the other option is that these outliers are not really representing the same thing as the rest of the data, and should be ignored, or at least treated with less weight.
\nThe outliers may be the most striking part of the data set, but they are usually the least important. There are all sorts of statistical measures by which to deal with them. I do not know which, if any, have been applied. There are no error bars, no boxes representing quartiles or some other percentage spanned by the data each point represents. Just marshmallows. Now I’m a little grumpy about the cutesy marshmallows. All marshmallows are portrayed as equal, but are some marshmallows more equal than others? This graph provides no information on this critical point.
\nIn the absence of any knowledge about the accuracy of each marshmallow, one is forced to use one’s brain. This is called judgement. This can be good or bad. It is possible to train the brain to be a good judge of these things – a skill that seems to be in decline these days.
\nWhat I see in the data are several clumps of points (disregarding the outliers). In the past decade there are over a dozen points all clumped together around an average of 8 minutes. That seems like a pretty consistent measure of the delayed gratification of the current generation of children.
\nBefore 2007, the data are more sparse. There are a half a dozen points on either side of 1997. These have a similar average of 7 or 8 minutes.
\nBefore that there are very little data. What there is goes back to the sixties. One could choose to see that as two clumps of three points, or one clump of six points. If one does the latter, the mean is around 5 minutes. So we had a “trend” of 5 minutes circa 1970, 7 minutes circa 1997, and 8 minutes circa 2010. That is an increase over time, but it is also a tiny trend – much less persuasive than the heavy solid line in the graph implies.
\nIf we treat the two clumps of three separately – as I think we should, since they sit well apart from each other – then we have to choose which to believe. They aren’t consistent. The delay time in 1968 looks to have an average of two minutes; in 1970 it looks to be 8 minutes. So which is it?
\nAccording to the line in the graph, we should believe the 1968 data and not the 1970 data. That is, the 1968 data fall nicely on the line, while the 1970 data fall well off it. In percentage terms, the 1970 data are as far from the trend as the highest 2010 point that we rejected as an outlier.
\nWhen fitting a line, the slope of the line can be strongly influence by the points at its ends. In this case, the earliest and the latest data. The latest data seem pretty consistent, but the earliest data are split. So the slope depends entirely on which clump of three early points you choose to believe.
\nIf we choose to believe the 1970 clump, then the “trend” becomes 8 minutes in 1970, 7 minutes in 1997, 8 minutes in 2010. Which is to say, no trend at all. Try disregarding the first three (1968) points and draw your own line on this graph. Without them, it is pretty flat. In the absence of error bars and credible statistics, I would conclude that there is no meaningful trend present in the data at all. Maybe a formal fit gives a non-zero slope, but I find it hard to believe it is\u00a0meaningfully non-zero.
\nNone of this happens in a vacuum. Lets step back and apply some external knowledge. Have people changed over the 5 decades of my life?
\nThe contention of the WaPo article is that they have. Specifically, contrary to the perception that iPhones and video games have created a generation with a cripplingly short attention span (congrats if you made it this far!), in fact the data show the opposite. The ability of children to delay gratification has improved over the time these experiments have been conducted.
\nWhat does the claimed trend imply? If we take it literally, then extrapolating back in time, the delay time goes to zero around 1917. People in the past must have been completely incapable of delaying gratification for even an instant. This was a power our species only developed in the past century.
\nI hope that sounds implausible. If there is no trend, which is what the data actually show, then children a half century ago were much the same as children a generation ago are much the same as the children of today. So the more conservative interpretation of the graph would be that human nature is rather invariant, at least as indicated by the measure of delayed gratification in children.
\nSadly, null results are dull. There well may be a published study reporting no trend, but it doesn’t get picked up by the Washington Post. Imagine the headline: “Children today are much the same as they’ve always been!” Who’s gonna click on that? In this fashion, even reputable news sources contribute to the scourge of misleading science and fake news that currently pollutes our public discourse.
\n
This sort of over-interpretation of weak trends is rife in many fields. My own, for example. This is why I’m good at spotting them. Fortunately, screwing up in Astronomy seldom threatens life and limb.
\nThen there is Medicine. My mother was a medical librarian; I occasionally browsed their journals when waiting for her at work. Graphs for the efficacy of treatments that looked like the marshmallow graph were very common. Which is to say, no effect was in evidence, but it was often portrayed as a positive trend. They seem to be getting better lately (which is to say, at some point in the not distant past some medical researchers were exposed to basic statistics), but there is an obvious pressure to provide a treatment, even if the effect of the available course of treatment is tiny. Couple that to the aggressive marketing of drugs in the US, and it would not surprise me if many drugs have been prescribed based on efficacy trends weaker than seen in the marshmallow graph. See! There is a line with a positive slope! It must be doing some good!
\nAnother problem with data interpretation is in the corrections applied. In the case of marshmallows,\u00a0one must correct for the age of the subject: an eight year old can usually hold out longer than a toddler. No doubt there are other corrections. The way these are usually made is to fit some sort of function to whatever trend is seen with age in a particular experiment. While that trend may be real, it also has scatter (I’ve known eight year olds who couldn’t out wait a toddler), which makes it dodgy to apply. Do all experiments see the same trend? It is safe to apply the same correction to all of them? Worse, it is often necessary to extrapolate these corrections beyond where they are constrained by data. This is known to be dangerous, as the correction can become overlarge upon extrapolation.
\nIt would not surprise me if the abnormally low points around 1968 were over-corrected in some way. But then, it was the sixties. Children may have not changed much since then, but the practice of psychology certainly has. Lets consider the implications that has for comparing 1968 data to 2017 data.
\nThe sixties were a good time for psychological research. The field had grown enormously since the time of Freud and was widely respected. However, this was also the time when many experimental psychologists thought psychotropic drugs were a good idea. Influential people praised the virtues of LSD.
\nMy father was a grad student in psychology in the sixties. He worked with swans. One group of hatchlings imprinted on him. When they grew up, they thought they should mate with people – that’s what their mom looked like, after all. So they’d and make aggressive displays towards any person (they could not distinguish human gender) who ventured too close.
\nHe related the anecdote of a colleague who became interested in the effect of LSD on animals. The field was so respected at the time that this chap was able to talk the local zoo into letting him inject an elephant with LSD. What could go wrong?
\nPerhaps you’ve heard the expression “That would have killed a horse! Fortunately, you’re not a horse.” Well, the fellow in question figured elephants were a lot bigger than people. So he scaled up the dose by the ratio of body mass. Not, say, the ratio of brain size, or whatever aspect of the metabolism deals with LSD.
\nThat’s enough LSD to kill an elephant.
\nSad as that was for the elephant, who is reputed to have been struck dead pretty much instantly – no tripping rampage preceded its demise – my point here is that these were the same people conducting the experiments in 1968. Standards were a little different. The difference seen in the graph may have more to do with differences in the field than with differences in the subjects.
\nThat is not to say we should simply disregard old data. The date on which an observation is made has no bearing on its reliability. The practice of the field at that time does.
\nThe 1968 delay times are absurdly low. All three are under four minutes. Such low delay times are not reproduced in any of the subsequent experiments. They would be more credible if the same result were even occasionally reproduced. It ain’t.
\nAnother way to look at this is that there should be a comparable number of outliers on either side of the correct trend. That isn’t necessarily true – sometimes systematic errors push in a single direction – but in the absence of knowledge of such effects, one would expect outliers on both the high side and the low side.
\nIn the marshmallow graph, with the trend as drawn, there are lots of outliers on the high side. There are none on the low side. [By outlier, I mean points well away from the trend, not just scattered a little to one side or the other.]
\nIf instead we draw a flat line at 7 or 8 minutes, then there are three outliers on both sides. The three very high points, and the three very low points, which happen to occur around 1968. It is entirely because the three outliers on the low side happen at the earliest time that we get even the hint of a trend. Spread them out, and they would immediately be dismissed as outliers – which is probably what they are. Without them, there is no significant trend. This would be\u00a0the more conservative interpretation of the marshmallow graph.
\nPerhaps those kids in 1968 were different in other ways. The experiments were presumably conducted in psychology departments on university campuses in the late sixties. It was OK to smoke inside back then, and not everybody restricted themselves to tobacco in those days. Who knows how much second hand marijuana smoke was inhaled just to getting to the test site? I jest, but the 1968 numbers might just measure the impact on delayed gratification when the subject gets the munchies.
\n
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/qbkmp-0ze20","guid":"https://tritonstation.com/?p=6685","image":"https://tritonstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/8631e895433bc3d1fa87e3d857fc7500.jpg","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1506124800,"rid":"0035s-ekx10","summary":"I have not posted here in a while. This is mostly due to the fact that I have a job that is both engaging and demanding. I started this blog as a way to blow off steam, but I realized this mostly meant ranting about those fools at the academy!","tags":["Data Interpretation","Sociology"],"title":"The kids are all right, but they can't interpret a graph","updated_at":1789458188,"url":"https://tritonstation.com/2017/09/23/the-kids-are-all-right-but-they-cant-interpret-a-graph/","version":"v1"}],"out_of":55858,"page":1,"per_page":10,"total-results":55858}