> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://balaustine.mymagic.page/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# To see faces where there are none
- URL: https://balaustine.mymagic.page/to-see-faces-where-there-are-none/
- Published: 2019-11-22T09:54:19.000Z
- Updated: 2019-11-22T09:54:19.000Z
- Author: VM
- Tags: Science, arXiv, Björn Brembs, conspiracy theories, Elisabeth Bik, image manipulation, impact factor, Ingelfinger rule, journal rank, Nature Medicine, Ohio State University, open knowledge, pareidolia, peer review, preprints, research fraud, William Romoser, #Migrated-1787483357778, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2026-08-23 11:09

This week in "neither university press offices nor prestigious journals know what they're doing": a professor emeritus at Ohio University who claimed he had evidence of life on Mars, and whose institution's media office crafted a press release without thinking twice to publicise his 'findings', and the paper that *Nature Medicine* [published](https://www.nature.com/articles/nm745?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) in 2002, cited 900+ times since, that has been found to contain multiple instances of image manipulation.

I'd thought the professor's case would remain obscure because it's evidently crackpot but this morning, articles from [*Space.com*](https://www.space.com/mars-bug-claim-not-aliens-search-for-life.html?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) and [*Universe Today*](https://www.universetoday.com/144091/insects-on-mars-or-another-case-of-pareidolia/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) showed up on my Twitter setting the record straight: that the insects the OU entomologist had found in pictures of Mars taken by the Curiosity rover were just artefacts of his (insectile) [pareidolia](https://taphysika.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/gravitational-lensing-and-facial-recognition/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page). Some people have called this science journalism in action but I'd say it's somewhat offensive to check if science journalism still works by gauging its ability, and initiative, to countering conspiracy theories, the lowest of low-hanging fruit.

![](https://taphysika.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/screenshot-2019-11-22-at-8.34.46-am.png?w=514)

The press release, which has since been taken down. Credit: EurekAlert and Wayback Machine

The juicier item on our plate is the *Nature Medicine* paper, the problems in which research integrity super-sleuth Elisabeth Bik [publicised](https://pubpeer.com/publications/3077D063616B7CD4CC2AC46C393F8F?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) on November 21, and which has a science journalism connection as well.

Remember [the anti-preprints article](https://taphysika.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/preprints-dont-promote-confusion-so-taking-them-away-wont-fix-anything/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) *Nature News* published in July 2018? Its author, Tom Sheldon, a senior press manager at the Science Media Centre, London, argued that preprints "promoted confusion" and that journalists who couldn't bank on [peer-reviewed work](https://thewire.in/the-sciences/to-reinvent-peer-review-we-must-reinvent-how-we-pay-peer-reviewers-back?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) ended up "misleading millions". In other words, it would be better if we got rid of preprints and journalists deferred only to the authority of peer-reviewed papers curated and published by journals, like *Nature*. Yet here we are today, with a peer-reviewed manuscript published in *Nature Medicine* whose checking process couldn't pick up on repetitive imagery. Is this just another form of pareidolia, to see a sensational result – knowing prestigious journals' [fondness for such results](https://thewire.in/science/replication-crisis-science?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) – where there was actually none?

(And before you say this is just one paper, read [this analysis](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page): "… data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, an accumulating body of evidence suggests the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be *decreasing* with increasing journal rank." Or this [extended critique](https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) of peer-review on *Vox*.)

This isn't an argument against the usefulness, or even need for, peer-review, which remains both useful and necessary. It's an argument against ludicrous claims [that peer-review is infallible](https://taphysika.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/high-temp-superconductivity-hype-cycles-and-peer-review/?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page), advanced in support of the [even more ludicrous argument](https://twitter.com/1amnerd/status/1022059110542409729?ref=balaustine.mymagic.page) that preprints should be eliminated to enable good journalism.