text:
Public Transportation in Madrid: Your Guide to Getting Around
This post includes affiliate links. That means that if you purchase something we recommend, we may earn a small commission (which we'll definitely spend on tapas). Rest assured that we only recommend a place or company if we honestly love it!
Spain's largest capital is home to a safe, clean and efficient public transportation network.
Not only is the city extremely walkable, but it's also very easy to get from point A to point B by metro, bus and more! If you're new to using public transportation in Madrid, here's all you need to know. Soon you'll be making your way around town like a born and bred madrileño!
Photo Credit: Barcex, Text Overlay: Devour Madrid Food Tours
A single journey on public transportation in Madrid will normally only set you back between €1.50 and €2, making it incredibly budget-friendly. If you'll be relying a lot on public transport, consider a 10-trip ticket pack. This costs just €12.20, works on both the bus and the metro, and tickets can be shared among several people. And if you'll be in town for 24 hours, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, 5 days, or one week, consider buying the corresponding public transport tourist pass!
Buying metro tickets in the station is easy! Photo credit: Sharon Hahn Darlin
With 13 lines traveling between more than 300 stations, the metro is one of the fastest and most efficient forms of public transportation in Madrid. Each line has a corresponding color, making maps easy to read and figure out routes. Catch the metro daily from 6 a.m. until 1:30 a.m., with trains coming sometimes as frequently as every 3 or 4 minutes. Frequency depends on the line and time of day. At night, be prepared to wait up to 15 minutes between trains. Be aware that trains will be especially crowded at rush hour. The metro is generally safe, but always be alert and aware that pickpockets tend to target the trains and stations, especially in major tourist areas.
You can buy tickets for the metro in each of the stations at the machines available. Simply select your language and the instructions on the screen will prompt you through the rest. Metro trains stop at all stations, so there's no need to press a button to signal your need to stop.
Madrid's metro is fast, inexpensive and easy to use! Photo credit: Sharon Hahn Darlin
Madrid's local bus company is known as EMT. They offer 2,000 blue buses serving more than 200 lines between the downtown area and residential neighborhoods. Normal buses run daily from 6 a.m. until 23:30, every 5 to 15 minutes depending on the line and time of day. At night, a limited service of nocturnal buses known as búhos ("owls") runs from 23:45 until 6 a.m. the next morning, every 15-30 minutes. This is the ideal option for public transportation in Madrid if you'll be out and about until the wee hours of the morning!
Single-journey tickets for the bus must be purchased on the bus itself. All buses are air conditioned and wheelchair-equipped, and many of the newer buses also feature seats for young children. When you need to get off, simply push the button to alert the driver as your stop is approaching.
Madrid's blue buses can get you anywhere you need to go! Photo credit: rafa_luque
Madrid's commuter train system, known as cercanías, connects the entire Madrid autonomous community. Renfe, the national rail service, operates these punctual and efficient trains. Most of its stations in downtown Madrid also have metro connections. Trains run daily from 6 a.m. until 23:00, every 10 to 30 minutes. This is a great option for public transportation in Madrid if you want to explore more of the region outside the capital! Just be aware that the further away you go from Madrid proper, the more your ticket will cost (though it won't hurt your wallet at all).
You can buy your ticket from the electronic machines in any of the cercanías stations. Like the metro ticket machines, simply follow the instructions as prompted.
Go beyond Madrid on the cercanías! Photo credit: Andrés Gómez – Club Ferroviario 241
One of the most common uses of public transportation in Madrid among visitors is to get from the city center to the airport and vice versa. Luckily, there are several options for doing so. Pick whichever works best for you, your budget and schedule.
From the Atocha train station and Plaza de Cibeles, take the yellow Airport Express bus. The bus runs every 15-20 minutes during the day and every 35 minutes at night (the nighttime bus does not go to Atocha, only Cibeles). The bus features plenty of luggage space and seating. Tickets are €5 and you can purchase it on the bus itself. It stops at each of the airport terminals as well. If you're going from the airport into the city, this option is available as well.
Public transportation in Madrid can take you anywhere—even to the airport! Photo credit: Jean-Pierre Dalbéra
You can also get to the airport via metro and cercanías. On the metro, take line 8 (the pink line), which starts at Nuevos Ministerios. Be aware that there is a special airport fare for the metro, so tickets cost slightly more than a normal ride. On the cercanías, take the C1 line, which starts at the Príncipe Pío station. Note that the cercanías only stops at terminal 4, so you'll need to take the airport shuttle bus from there to get to any of the other terminals.
Insider's Tip: If you have a long-distance or high-speed (AVE) train ticket, you can take the cercanías to the airport for free!
Finally, if you know you'll be too jet-lagged to navigate public transportation right after coming off a long flight, consider a private transfer to the city. With Welcome Pickups, you can secure your ride in advance, giving you one less thing to worry about. After you reserve online, you'll get an email with your driver's photo, contact details and the meeting point a few days before your flight, and once you arrive in Madrid, they'll be waiting for you with a sign with your name on it. Drivers even monitor your flight status in case of delays. And all this comes at an affordable price—just a little bit more than an airport taxi!
No need to say goodbye—add your email address in the form below to stay up-to-date on all things Devour Tours.
ADD_THIS_TEXT
Lindsey Zimmerman
Life is too short to speak one language and stay in one place. In 2015, this philosophy took her from familiar Ohio to sunny southern Spain. Usually drinking tinto de verano, reading Lorca, or attempting to dance flamenco (not all at once). Follow her blog, Viatic Couture, for more.
Keep Devouring
airport bus cercanías metro public transportation train travel
Martin campbell says
Will there be extra trains on next Saturday 1st June to facilitate football vans to get out of the city. I've book for the first train back on Sunday 2nd June to Valencia. If there is extra rains will my ticket be valid.
Martin c
Devour Tours says
Hey Martin, thanks for your question! It probably depends on the kind of ticket you bought—some allow changes and others don't. Contacting RENFE would probably be your best bet!
Maros says
Hello, may I ask for advice? I am considering travel to Madrid in October. The tricky thing is an early flight from Madrid (6:30). Which part of the city should I seek accommodation (close to the centre) in order to catch such earky plane? And what kind of transport (other than taxi) would be best for very early morning? Thanks
Hi Maros! If your flight leaves at 6:30 a.m., you can get to the airport via the Airport Express bus: https://www.emtmadrid.es/Aeropuerto?lang=en-GB
In the early morning, it departs from Plaza de Cibeles which is right in between Gran Vía/Calle de Alcalá and the Retiro area. You could stay there, or perhaps near the northern end of Paseo del Prado. The bus itself costs just €5, so it's a much more economical option than a taxi.
We hope this helps—enjoy Madrid!
How old do you have to be to legally travel the Barcelona metro alone ??
As a child?
Hi Nicola—there is no minimum age for traveling alone on Barcelona's public transportation system, but we recommend that small children always be in the company of an adult for safety reasons. Teenagers should be fine to travel alone if they're familiar with how to use the metro. See more of our Barcelona public transportation tips here: https://devourbarcelonafoodtours.com/public-transportation-in-barcelona/
Hi, I'm heading to Malasaña from the airport in January and am on a tight budget. What's the cheapest and easiest way to get there? Is there a train that goes directly there? I will have luggage and will have just finished a very long flight.
Hi Rebecca—your best option would be to take the Airport Express bus (https://www.esmadrid.com/en/airport-express) to Atocha Station for €5. The bus is equipped with luggage racks, and once it reaches the station, you can hop on metro line 1 to get to Malasaña (a single trip ticket costs €1.50). We hope this helps—have a wonderful trip to Madrid!
Late Night Bites: Restaurants Open Late in Madrid
Where to Buy Jamón Ibérico in Madrid (And Where to Eat It, Too!)
Tapas, Taverns & History Tour
Evening Tour
4 hours, 1.7 miles


text:
from swgpy.object import *

def create(kernel):
	result = Intangible()

	result.template = "object/draft_schematic/vehicle/component/shared_proton_torpedo_array.iff"
	result.attribute_template_id = -1
	result.stfName("string_id_table","")

	#### BEGIN MODIFICATIONS ####
	####  END MODIFICATIONS  ####

	return result

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Snow varying all morning. Currently a light flurry in Furano Town.
Actually very still at the moment but it has been breezy off and on. Fair on the resort. Low cloud. Could be poor visibility at the top in areas.
Fat flakes, skinny flakes, fast flakes, slow flakes.
Nice morning in Furano. The snow started some time very early. It did get very blustery in the wee hours when the weather system arrived.
At 8.30am about 3cm had fallen in Kitanomine Village and about 10cm up the top of the resort. There have been flurries, heavy snows and bright patches ever since. Currently a flurry in Furano town.
For the next five days the forecast calls for off and on snow, but yesterday it called for rain that never arrived so our forecast is really only indicative. The best way to tell the weather is, has always been, and will always be to look outside. So we did that for you today and in a word, outside is snowy.
Photo 1 is the Kitanomine Gondola building and the piste behind it. May open tomorrow, we are waiting for word.
Photo 2 is the view from Kitanomine Village back towards town. Both photos were taken at 8.45am.
Four lifts running on the New Prince side of the resort (Furano Zone). About 35% of the resort is open. Lifts are running on Kitanomine but not for skiers yet. We hope tomorrow will be the full opening day but may not know until morning.


Adrienne von Speyr offered a most unique perspective of the lives and hearts of some of the saints of the Catholic Church. A doctor, a convert to Catholicism, a mystic and author, she wrote more than sixty books on spirituality and theology.
The Book of All Saints is the result of her collaboration with Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, her spiritual director and confessor. Adrienne, through her unique chrism was able to put herself in the place of various individuals to see and describe their prayer. Afterwards, while in a state of prayer, she would dictate what she saw to Father von Balthasar. This book is a collection of those insights. Read about Saint John the Apostle, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas and many others, some of whom were not saints in the strictest sense of the word, but struggled to succeed in obedience to God. With one page devoted to each saint, over 400 personalities comprise this excellent collection.
6" x 1-1/4" x 9"


Beasley & Galardi Recognized as 2015 "Super Lawyers" | Beasley & Galardi, P.A.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (June 11, 2015) – James W. Beasley, Jr. and Joseph G. Galardi, shareholders at the law firm, Beasley & Galardi, P.A., in West Palm Beach, Fla., have been recognized as Super Lawyers for 2015. Only five percent of attorneys in each state earn this distinction.
Super Lawyers rates lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have obtained high degrees of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
Joseph G. Galardi concentrates his legal practice in complex commercial litigation matters in state and federal courts, including class actions for plaintiffs. Galardi also has significant experience in banking and financial litigation and in partnership disputes.
Beasley & Galardi, P.A. is a business and financial law firm with extensive experience in a broad range of complex disputes, including corporate and partnership litigation, healthcare business litigation, trust and estate litigation, and executive employment disputes. The firm provides representation in federal and state courts, in trials and appeals, and in arbitration. The firm also provides services in business and financial transactions. For more information visit: www.beasleylaw.net, or call 561.835.0900.


text:
Aiyuk
'20 184.50 35
@LA: #26 vs opposing WR - 36.70 FPA
Bye Week6 Rank36 % Rostered84 % Change-0.1 WK 17 Pts13.40 WK 18 Pts16.70
1 @DET
Win, 41-33
- - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00
2 @PHI
- - - - - 1 6 - - - - - 1.60
Loss, 28-30
- - - 8 - 4 37 1 - - - - 14.50
- - - - - 1 15 - - - - - 2.50
5 @ARI
7 IND
- - - 3 - 1 6 - - - - - 1.90
8 @CHI
- - - - - 4 45 - - - 1 - 10.50
9 ARI
- - - -2 - 6 89 1 - - - 1 18.70
10 LA
11 @JAX
- - - - - 7 85 1 - - - - 21.50
- - - 4 - 3 91 - - - - - 12.50
13 @SEA
14 @CIN
15 ATL
16 @TEN
17 HOU
Win, 23-7
- - - - - 4 94 - - - - - 13.40
18 @LA
- - - - - 6 107 - - - - - 16.70
1 @DET,
- - - - - 0.00
2 @PHI,
- - 6 - - 1.60
3 GB,
8 - 37 1 - 14.50
4 SEA,
- - 15 - - 2.50
5 @ARI,
7 IND,
3 - 6 - - 1.90
8 @CHI,
- - 45 - - 10.50
9 ARI,
-2 - 89 1 1 18.70
10 LA,
11 @JAX,
- - 85 1 - 21.50
12 MIN,
4 - 91 - - 12.50
13 @SEA,
14 @CIN,
15 ATL,
16 @TEN,
17 HOU,
18 @LA,
- - 107 - - 16.70
6 Bye
Leads team with 107 yards
Aiyuk caught six of seven targets for 107 yards in Sunday's 27-24 win over the Rams.
Analysis: Aiyuk played a key role in the passing game for the 49ers, delivering on a couple of big plays at the end of the first half and also in overtime to help San Francisco secure a playoff berth. The 23-year-old began his sophomore campaign in the doghouse, but he finished strong with 68.5 receiving yards per game and four touchdowns over the last 10 games of the season. Aiyuk didn't deliver on his sleeper status in 2021, but he may get another chance come draft season following his strong finish to…read more
Published: Sun, Jan 9 at 7:44pm by Rotowire.com
Leads team with 94 receiving yards
Aiyuk corralled four of six targets for 94 yards in Sunday's 23-7 win over the Texans.
Analysis: Aiyuk collected 94 of rookie Trey Lance's 249 passing yards, most of which came in the second half of the contest. Deebo Samuel and Elijah Mitchell (knee) were the recipients of Lance's two touchdown throws, but Aiyuk set up both scores with big chunk plays between the 20s. The rookie quarterback was inconsistent at times, but he eventually got the ball into most of his playmakers' hands. Jimmy Garoppolo (thumb) is considered questionable for the team's Week 18 finale against the Rams, but…read more
Finds end zone in loss
Aiyuk brought in four of five targets for 40 yards and a touchdown and returned one punt for 12 yards in the 49ers' 20-17 loss to the Titans on Thursday night.
Analysis: Aiyuk would have had a pedestrian fantasy night overall had it not been for his two-yard game-tying touchdown grab with 2:20 remaining. The second-year wideout has now compiled 55 receiving yards or less in three of his past four games, although he does now have a touchdown in two straight contests. Aiyuk's next opportunity to build up his numbers comes in a Week 17 home matchup against the Texans a week from Sunday.
One catch in win
Aiyuk had one reception (two targets) for 36 yards in Sunday's 31-13 win over the Falcons.
Analysis: Aiyuk and Deebo Samuel (4-60-0) appeared to flip their recent roles in the pass game, with the latter maintaining his role as a backfield threat (6-29-1 rushing). At least Aiyuk was able to break off his lone touch for 36 yards one week after putting his YAC skills on display with a game-ending touchdown in overtime against the Bengals. Despite the low output Sunday, the 23-year-old remains a fantasy-relevant option with averages of 4.1 receptions and 63.4 yards with three total touchdowns over…read more
Published: Sun, Dec 19 at 6:59pm by Rotowire.com
Overtime hero against Cincinnati
Aiyuk caught six of 11 targets for 62 yards and a touchdown in Sunday's 26-23 overtime win over the Bengals.
Analysis: He also gained four yards on his only carry. With Elijah Mitchell (concussion) sidelined and Deebo Samuel seeing most of his work out of the backfield again, Aiyuk was the Niners' top wideout, and he wound up scoring the winning TD on a 12-yard catch-and-run in overtime. The second-year player has topped 50 receiving yards in four straight games, posting a 19-293-2 line on 30 targets over that stretch, and he figures to have a prominent role again in Week 15 against the Falcons.
Only three catches Sunday
Aiyuk caught three of six targets for 55 yards in Sunday's 30-23 loss to the Seahawks.
Analysis: While he posted decent numbers, Aiyuk wasn't able to take advantage of the absence of Deebo Samuel (groin) to have a breakout, as instead George Kittle was the one who put together a monster performance. Aiyuk has compiled a 29-391-2 line on 38 targets over the last six games, giving him a fairly solid floor heading into a Week 14 tilt against the Bengals.
Published: Sun, Dec 5 at 8:47pm by Rotowire.com
May get more work sans Deebo
Aiyuk should be headed for a key role in the 49ers' passing game with fellow wide receiver Deebo Samuel (groin) ruled out for Sunday's contest in Seattle, Jerry McDonald of The San Jose Mercury News reports.
Analysis: In addition to the opportunity for added targets, Aiyuk seems to be on the same page with head coach Kyle Shanahan, with both agreeing that the wideout has come a long way since he was reduced to a part-time role sharing snaps with Trent Sherfield early in the season. Samuel's absence for Week 13 (and possibly Week 14) leaves Aiyuk and tight end George Kittle as the far-and-away top options for quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo, who has led the team to three straight wins while attempting 26 or fewer…read more
Published: Fri, Dec 3 at 3:54pm by Rotowire.com
Leading receiver in win
Aiyuk caught three of six targets for 91 yards in Sunday's 34-28 win over the Vikings.
Analysis: He also gained four rushing yards on one carry. Deebo Samuel (groin) was doing most of his damage out of the backfield, leaving Aiyuk to lead the Niners in receiving yards while setting a new season high in the category. If Samuel's injury proves to be serious, Aiyuk will take on an even bigger role in Week 13 against the Seahawks.
Published: Sun, Nov 28 at 8:16pm by Rotowire.com
Automatic on seven targets
Aiyuk caught seven passes for 85 yards and one touchdown on seven targets against Jacksonville on Sunday.
Analysis: Given the last month of improved production, it's hopefully safe to say by now that Aiyuk is free from whatever limitations he had to begin the year. While he can't always count on the target share or efficiency he enjoyed Sunday, Aiyuk's explosiveness speaks for itself and a similar caliber of play to Sunday's will keep him involved in the San Francisco game plan. He's still probably third in line behind Deebo Samuel and George Kittle in the offensive hierarchy, but a Week 12 matchup against…read more
Makes three grabs
Aiyuk caught three of four targets for 26 yards in Monday night's 31-10 win over the Rams.
Analysis: Aiyuk didn't approach his production from last week's breakout, but he still showed his exciting after-the-catch ability with a 21-yard gain during the first half. With the Niners leading comfortably for the majority of Monday's contest, resulting in 44 rushing attempts, only tight end George Kittle saw more than five targets. San Francisco will strive to be similarly dominant in Week 11 versus Jacksonville, and Aiyuk's matchup could enable him to make a bigger impact.
Published: Mon, Nov 15 at 8:39pm by Rotowire.com
Breaks out in Week 9 loss
Aiyuk caught six of eight targets for 89 yards and a touchdown in Sunday's 31-17 loss to the Cardinals.
Analysis: It was by far the best performance of the year for Aiyuk, as he set season highs in catches, yards and targets while scoring his second TD of 2021 on an 11-yard strike from Jimmy Garoppolo in the third quarter. It's been a tough first half for Aiyuk, who has had trouble getting out of Kyle Shanahan's doghouse and reclaiming a prime spot in the offense, but he'll take some well-earned momentum into a Week 10 clash with the Rams.
Published: Sun, Nov 7 at 10:56pm by Rotowire.com
Season-high 45 yards
Aiyuk had four receptions (seven targets) for 45 yards in Sunday's 33-22 win over the Bears.
Analysis: Aiyuk turned in his best performance of the season in Week 8, which is more of a testament of how poorly the 2020 first-round pick has performed this year, as opposed to a sign of things to come. With George Kittle (calf) targeting a Week 9 return, Aiyuk may see his targets reduced even further after setting a new season high of seven against Chicago. Aiyuk showed flashes of fantasy upside in his rookie campaign, so managers shouldn't write him off completely, but we need to see several weeks…read more
Published: Sun, Oct 31 at 3:15pm by Rotowire.com
Nearly invisible in start
Aiyuk started and was on the field for 40 offensive snaps (71 percent), but he only finished with one reception (one target) for six yards in Sunday's 30-18 loss to the Colts.
Analysis: The 49ers are in desperate need of a second receiving threat behind Deebo Samuel (100 yards and a touchdown Sunday) while George Kittle (calf) mends on IR, but Aiyuk continues to provide little to no help despite getting significant playing time. The club tried explaining away the second-year wideout's struggles this year with a preseason injury, but he has been off the injury report for the last two games and had the recent bye week to rest up. Aiyuk simply isn't getting the job done; unlike…read more
Published: Mon, Oct 25 at 1:28pm by Rotowire.com
Quiet in Week 5
Aiyuk caught two of four targets for 32 yards against Arizona on Sunday.
Analysis: Aiyuk's four targets was a decent level of activity in a game in which the 49ers attempted only 28 targeted passes, but it required George Kittle (calf) to sit out for Aiyuk to draw that usage. Deebo Samuel saw nine targets, and Aiyuk's four were tied by fullback Kyle Juszczyk. Aiyuk's strong rookie season and collegiate career give reason to believe in his talent, but for whatever reason the 49ers just haven't made him a central part of their offense through five games. Perhaps that will…read more
Invisible again in Week 4
Aiyuk caught one of three targets for a 15-yard reception against Seattle on Sunday.
Analysis: Aiyuk's playing time picked up in recent weeks and he showed some flickers of production heading into Sunday, making this dud box score that much more disappointing. Deebo Samuel caught eight of 12 targets in the game and even Mohamed Sanu caught four of five targets, so the circumstances don't really explain Aiyuk's disappearance despite Jimmy Garoppolo (calf) leaving the game at halftime. Perhaps the 49ers will look to use Aiyuk more in Week 5 when they go on the road to face the division…read more
Published: Sun, Oct 3 at 5:12pm by Rotowire.com
Scores first touchdown of '21
Aiyuk caught four of six targets for 37 yards and a touchdown in Sunday's 30-28 loss to the Packers.
Analysis: Aiyuk finally posted a respectable stat line after ghosting fantasy managers for the first two games of the season (one reception for six yards over that span). Head coach Kyle Shanahan insisted that his wide receiver was being brought along slowly due to a preseason leg injury and not because he was in the doghouse, despite the wideout never being listed on the injury report for the first three games of the season. Whatever the case may have been, this was the first game in which Aiyuk was…read more
Published: Sun, Sep 26 at 11:40pm by Rotowire.com
Starts, but does little
Aiyuk had one reception (two targets) for six yards in Sunday's 17-11 win over the Eagles.
Analysis: Aiyuk returned to starting opposite Deebo Samuel after falling to fourth on the depth chart in Week 1. The 2020 first-round pick logged 54 percent of offensive snaps after being limited to just 30 percent last game. Despite the increase in playing time, Aiyuk didn't get much attention offensively. Head coach Kyle Shanahan claimed that Aiyuk's role reduction was due to a lingering hamstring injury, but the wideout has been a full participant in practices for two weeks now. It is unclear when…read more
Published: Mon, Sep 20 at 2:45pm by Rotowire.com
May need more practice time
San Francisco head coach Kyle Shanahan said Wednesday that Aiyuk should see more playing time moving forward as long as he stays healthy and regularly participates in practice, David Lombardi of The Athletic reports.
Analysis: Shanahan has repeatedly mentioned the missed practice time when asked about Aiyuk splitting snaps with Trent Sherfield in Sunday's 41-33 win over the Lions. Most recently, Aiyuk was out for a couple weeks with a hamstring injury before returning to practice last week as a full participant Wednesday through Friday. It isn't clear if his part-time role Week 1 was planned all along or not, but Aiyuk barely played in the first half (30 percent of snaps) before stepping up to a 60 percent snap share…read more
Published: Wed, Sep 15 at 1:11pm by Rotowire.com
Fall in depth chart injury-related
Aiyuk (hamstring) -- who did not receive a target in Sunday's win over the Lions -- fell down the depth chart due to injury and not performance, David Lombardi of The Athletic reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk was a ghost in the box score in a game during which the 49ers put up 41 points. The dynamic wideout had been nursing a hamstring injury this preseason, and while he wasn't listed on the pregame injury report, head coach Kyle Shanahan's explanation solves the mystery of why the 2020 first-round pick was not used. The rest of San Francisco's receiving corps excelled in their individual roles Sunday, but we have to assume that a talent like Aiyuk will reclaim his co-starting role alongside…read more
Published: Sun, Sep 12 at 2:57pm by Rotowire.com
Makes full showing Wednesday
Aiyuk (hamstring) practiced fully Wednesday, Keiana Martin of the 49ers' official site reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk was limited to just one appearance during exhibition season, gathering in one of three passes for three yards Aug. 22 versus the Chargers. Thereafter, a hamstring injury has been bothering him, but it's apparently dissipated enough for him to partake in all drills in the first practice of Week 1. Aiyuk will pair with Deebo Samuel to serve as the top two wide receivers in San Francisco's offense in the coming campaign.
Running routes Monday
Aiyuk (hamstring) ran routes and caught passes during the part of Monday's practice open to the media, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk didn't suit up for the 49ers' exhibition finale due to a minor hamstring issue. Prior to that, he made just one appearance in the preseason, hauling in one of three targets for three yards Aug. 22 against the Chargers. Last Thursday, Aiyuk was spotted running sprints on a side field, and he now has progressed enough to be a participant in practice. The 49ers will post their first Week 1 injury report Wednesday, at which point his status in advance of the opener will become more clear.
Published: Mon, Sep 6 at 11:36am by Rotowire.com
Looking good on side field
Aiyuk (hamstring) looked unencumbered while running sprints on a side field Thursday, and he's on track to be a full-go Week 1 at Detroit, David Lombardi of The Athletic reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk has been out for about a week now, after catching one pass for three yards in San Francisco's second preseason game (his only appearance this August). A return to practice should be coming at some point within the next week, as the 49ers maintain that Aiyuk's hamstring injury is minor.
Published: Thu, Sep 2 at 12:04pm by Rotowire.com
No activity Wednesday
Aiyuk (hamstring) didn't take part in the portion of Wednesday's practice open to the media, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk made just one appearance during exhibition season, gathering in one of three targets for three yards in preseason Week 2 against the Chargers. Since then, he picked up a minor hamstring injury that kept him out of the 49ers' preseason finale, as well as recent practices. There doesn't seem to be too much worry about his ability to be ready for Week 1 at Detroit, but his status nonetheless will be monitored over the next week and a half.
Minor hamstring injury
Aiyuk is dealing with what's being described as a slight hamstring issue, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: As a result, Aiyuk won't play in Sunday's preseason finale versus the Raiders. However, the 49ers' starting wideout is expected to be fine by next week, according to coach Kyle Shanahan. Assuming that's the case, Aiyuk's Week 1 status is not in any jeopardy.
Published: Fri, Aug 27 at 1:52pm by Rotowire.com
Secures catch in preseason debut
Aiyuk caught one of three targets for three yards in Sunday's 15-10 preseason win over the Chargers.
Analysis: Aiyuk made his 2021 preseason debut after sitting out last week's contest with most of the other starters. Both of his missed targets were the result of inaccurate passes from both of his quarterbacks. The 49ers' first-round pick from a year ago hasn't had a ton of on-field experience with either Jimmy Garoppolo or rookie Trey Lance, so any reps they accrue together this preseason will be beneficial. Expect Aiyuk and the rest of the starters to get a little more run in next Sunday's "dress…read more
Published: Sun, Aug 22 at 8:25pm by Rotowire.com
Returns healthy for camp
Aiyuk (groin) made a number of catches Wednesday during the first practice of training camp, Chris Biderman of The Sacramento Bee reports.
Analysis: He's apparently recovered from the minor groin injury that held him out of OTAs, with Eric Branch of the San Francisco Chronicle also noting that Aiyuk had a great practice Wednesday. The second-year pro is locked in as a starter and foundational piece in San Francisco, competing for targets with wideout Deebo Samuel and tight end George Kittle in an offense that should have a tight distribution. Head coach Kyle Shanahan has made multiple comments in support of quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo, but…read more
Published: Wed, Jul 28 at 12:48pm by Rotowire.com
Dealing with minor groin issue
Aiyuk didn't take part in Wednesday's OTA session due to a minor groin injury, Matt Barrows of The Athletic reports.
Analysis: Fortunately, Aiyuk and a number of other skill-position players who sat out Wednesday with injuries are expected to be ready by the time training camp rolls around in late July. Aiyuk's health situation is still worth monitoring in the coming months to ensure it doesn't become a bigger problem down the road.
Published: Wed, Jun 2 at 12:37pm by Rotowire.com
Won't play in Week 17
Aiyuk, who suffered a high-ankle sprain in this past Saturday's win over the Cardinals, won't play in Sunday's season finale against the Seahawks, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk thus finishes the campaign with a team-high 60 catches (on 96 targets) for 748 yards and five TDs in 12 games. Looking ahead to next season, the 2020 first-rounder will bring solid fantasy upside to the table, but the 49ers offense could look a bit different next season, once the team's offseason personnel moves shake out.
Published: Mon, Dec 28 at 2:47pm by Rotowire.com
Can't get going in Week 16
Aiyuk recorded one reception on two targets for 15 yards in Week 16 against the Cardinals. He added one rushing attempt for 16 yards.
Analysis: C.J. Beathard completed only 13 passes, leaving most of the 49ers' receiving options with little volume. He targeted wide receivers on only four occasions, providing Aiyuk with very little chance to produce. The result was Aiyuk's lowest reception total of his career. It also snapped a very productive stretch for him, as he had topped 70 receiving yards in each of his last six games. With Nick Mullens' (elbow) season officially over and Jimmy Garoppolo unlikely to return for a Week 17 matchup…read more
Published: Sat, Dec 26 at 5:38pm by Rotowire.com
Scores seventh TD in loss
Aiyuk caught nine of 13 targets for 73 yards and a touchdown during Sunday's 41-33 loss to the Cowboys.
Analysis: Aiyuk once again led the team in targets and receptions as he surpassed 70 receiving yards for the sixth consecutive game. He also scored his fourth touchdown in the last five outings with a short score off a touch pass in the second quarter. The dynamic rookie continues to produce excellent numbers despite subpar quarterback play and now has 773 receiving yards to go along with seven total touchdowns. Aiyuk will look to add to his totals in next Saturday's divisional matchup with the Cardinals.
Dominates in Samuel's absence
Aiyuk caught 10 of 16 targets for 119 yards during Sunday's 23-15 loss to Washington.
Analysis: Deebo Samuel (hamstring) left the game on the second play from scrimmage, leaving Aiyuk to carry the passing attack. That he did, setting new career highs in targets, catches and receiving yards as the rest of the offense struggled to move the ball. This career game continues an excellent run of form for Aiyuk, who is now averaging 99.0 yards and 7.2 catches per game over his last five. The rookie will look to continue his ascent next Sunday against the Cowboys.
Excels in return
Aiyuk secured five of nine targets for 95 yards and a touchdown while also returning one punt for 16 yards in the 49ers' 34-24 loss to the Bills on Monday night.
Analysis: The rookie had missed the Week 12 win over the Rams after testing positive for COVID-19 back on Nov. 20, and he showed no ill effects from the layoff while pacing the 49ers in receiving yards and tying fellow wideout Deebo Samuel for the team lead in targets. Aiyuk put his elite athleticism on display on more than one occasion Monday night, and despite the defending NFC champions' playoff hopes dimming further with the loss, it will be interesting to see what Aiyuk and Samuel can do with an…read more
Published: Mon, Dec 7 at 8:41pm by Rotowire.com
Feeling good ahead of Week 13
Despite a positive COVID-19 test Nov. 20, Aiyuk told Cam Inman of The San Jose Mercury News on Friday that he's "feeling fresh physically and mentally" in advance of Monday night's game against the Bills.
Analysis: Aiyuk missed one game as a result, but with three full days of practice under his belt he's set to resume his standing as one of the 49ers' top receivers. While Deebo Samuel is the clear No. 1 option, Aiyuk has averaged 12.7 YPC and 8.0 YPT while scoring three touchdowns on his 56 targets this season.
Returns to active roster
The 49ers activated Aiyuk (undisclosed) from the reserve/COVID-19 list Wednesday.
Analysis: As expected, Aiyuk is back on the active roster after spending two different stints on the reserve list. He hasn't played since Week 10, but at that point, he had recorded touchdowns in three of his last four games. Aiyuk will look to reconnect with Nick Mullens this Monday against the Bills.
Published: Wed, Dec 2 at 1:55pm by Rotowire.com
In line for activation
The 49ers are expected to activate Aiyuk (undisclosed) from the reserve/COVID-19 list Tuesday, Chris Biderman of The Sacramento Bee reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk spent two stints on the reserve list, but it was never revealed whether he tested positive for the virus or was merely a close contact of someone who did. In any case, as long as he's back on the active roster by Thursday, he'll join his teammates for practice as the 49ers prepare for Monday's game against the Bills.
Published: Tue, Dec 1 at 10:08am by Rotowire.com
Officially out Sunday
Aiyuk won't be activated from the reserve/COVID-19 list for Sunday's game against the Rams, Jennifer Lee Chan of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk's next chance to play will be Week 13 against the Bills, a Monday night game. Deebo Samuel, Richie James and Kendrick Bourne figure to command most of the work in three-wide sets Sunday.
Published: Sat, Nov 28 at 4:37pm by Rotowire.com
Looking doubtful for Sunday
Coach Kyle Shanahan said Friday that he hasn't heard anything about Aiyuk (reserve/COVID-19) potentially being able to play in Sunday's game against the Rams, Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: Shanahan said LT Trent Williams has an outside chance, perhaps hinting that Aiyuk has no chance at all. The 49ers seem to be preparing as if the rookie will miss the game.
Published: Fri, Nov 27 at 2:05pm by Rotowire.com
Returns to reserve/COVID list
The 49ers placed Aiyuk on the reserve/COVID-19 list Friday, Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: Along with Aiyuk, the 49ers also designated tight end Daniel Helm and offensive tackle Trent Williams, marking the second time both Aiyuk and Williams have landed on the list. At this time, it's not known whether Aiyuk tested positive for COVID-19 or was deemed a close contact of someone who did. If it's the latter case, Aiyuk should have a good chance at gaining clearance for the 49ers' next game Nov. 29 versus the Rams, as the team is on bye Week 11.
Scores fifth TD
Aiyuk caught seven of 14 targets for 75 yards and a touchdown while losing eight yards on his only rushing attempt during Sunday's 27-13 loss to the Saints.
Analysis: Aiyuk got off to a strong start and opened the scoring with a four-yard touchdown reception in the first quarter. He drew a whopping 37-percent target share as he received nearly three times the number of looks as the next-closest wideout on the team. Aiyuk now has five touchdowns in his last seven games and has averaged 93.7 yards over his last three. Deebo Samuel (hamstring) could return after the upcoming bye week, but Aiyuk should still retain a sizable role in the passing game after…read more
Comes off reserve/COVID-19 list
Aiyuk was activated from the reserve/COVID-19 list Friday.
Analysis: After teammate Kendrick Bourne was placed on the list Wednesday following his positive COVID-19 test, Aiyuk, Deebo Samuel and Trent Williams were added to the list later in the day when the three were identified to be in close contact with Bourne. All four players were held out of Thursday's 34-17 loss to the Packers, even though Bourne proceeded to test negative Thursday and Friday, seemingly confirming that the initial test result was a false positive. Along with Aiyuk, the other three…read more
Published: Fri, Nov 6 at 4:14pm by Rotowire.com
Won't play Thursday
The 49ers placed Aiyuk on the reserve/ COVID-19 list Wednesday, Mike Garafolo of NFL Network reports.
Analysis: The hits keep coming for the 49ers, who placed Kendrick Bourne on the COVID-19 list earlier Wednesday due to a positive test result. Aiyuk and Deebo Samuel (hamstring) have been deemed to be high-risk close contacts of Bourne, meaning they'll be sidelined Thursday against the Packers. With that trio sidelined, San Francisco may be down to just two available wide receivers -- Trent Taylor and Richie James -- in Week 9, but the latter player is questionable to play himself due to an ankle injury.
Published: Wed, Nov 4 at 4:42pm by Rotowire.com
Another impressive performance
Aiyuk recorded eight receptions on 11 targets for 91 yards and a touchdown in Week 8 against the Seahawks.
Analysis: Aiyuk followed up his breakout performance in Week 7 with another strong effort to lead the team in targets and yards. A significant portion of his production came with Nick Mullens under center during the fourth quarter, including a leaping catch for 33 yards down the middle of the field. On the team's next drive, Aiyuk hauled in a pass from three yards away for a touchdown in the corner of the end zone. Aiyuk could be in for a significant number of targets again in Week 9 against Green Bay on…read more
Published: Sun, Nov 1 at 8:29pm by Rotowire.com
Records career-high yardage total
Aiyuk caught six of seven targets for 115 yards during Sunday's 33-6 win over the Patriots.
Analysis: Aiyuk led the team in targets and receptions while posting the highest yardage total of his young career. He broke off a season-long gain of 35 yards and made several other splashy plays against a notoriously tough Patriots secondary. Aiyuk's production has varied from week to week this season, but it's clear he has the ability to be a difference-maker in the 49ers offense . He'll have a good chance to add to his numbers next Sunday against a beatable Seattle secondary.
Scores on three targets
Aiyuk had two receptions (three targets) for 11 yards and a touchdown in Sunday's 24-16 win over the Rams.
Analysis: Aiyuk was having a quiet night until Jimmy Garoppolo dialed him up from the red zone for what turned out to be the deciding score. It was the 22-year-old's first receiving touchdown of his career, but it was his third overall this season (the previous two were rushing scores). This game was significant because it was the first time we saw a normal game script with the 49ers' offense operating at full strength. Despite getting into the end zone, the two receptions and three targets are…read more
Published: Sun, Oct 18 at 11:18pm by Rotowire.com
Posts 44 yards in blowout loss
Aiyuk had three receptions (six targets) for 44 yards in Sunday's 43-17 loss to the Dolphins.
Analysis: The 49ers' quarterback play was atrocious in this one, so it is hard to place blame on Aiyuk for the pedestrian stat line. In fact, he tied George Kittle for the team lead in receiving yards in a forgettable game all around. The notable stat for the talented rookie was the playing time, as he led all San Francisco wideouts with a whopping 97 percent of offensive snaps. He was followed closely by Deebo Samuel (89 percent), and it appears the two YAC monsters will be co-starters for the…read more
Published: Mon, Oct 12 at 12:33pm by Rotowire.com
Flashes athleticism on TD run
Aiyuk had two receptions (five targets) for 18 yards, but did most of his damage on a 38-yard touchdown run in a loss to the Eagles on Sunday.
Analysis: Aiyuk remained in the starting lineup as Deebo Samuel (foot) was eased back into action. The dynamic rookie put his after-the-catch skills on display when he took a backwards pass behind the line of scrimmage and bounced off of two tackles before hurdling a diving defender and landing in the end zone. It was a highlight-reel play that flashed the potential Aiyuk has to rip off a big play at any moment. It is unclear if the Arizona State product will remain a starter against the Dolphins on…read more
Published: Sun, Oct 4 at 11:03pm by Rotowire.com
Shines in Week 3 breakout
Aiyuk brought in five of eight targets for 70 yards and rushed three times for 31 yards and a touchdown in the 49ers' 36-9 win over the Giants on Sunday.
Analysis: The rookie made a splash in his second NFL game, pacing the team in receptions, receiving yards and targets while also notching a 19-yard scoring rush late in the third quarter to give the 49ers key breathing room by extending the lead to 23-9. Aiyuk had generated a modest 2-21-0 line back in his Week 2 debut, but if Nick Mullens is forced to log another start in place of Jimmy Garoppolo (ankle) in a Week 4 Sunday night matchup against the Eagles, the chemistry the duo demonstrated Week 3…read more
Two catches in Week 2
Aiyuk caught two of three targets for 21 yards in Sunday's 31-13 win over the Jets.
Analysis: Aiyuk had a minimal impact in his NFL debut, as just two 49ers receivers were afforded more than three targets. It's a bit disappointing for the first-round pick, but now that he's healthy, he should be able to carve out an increased role. Deebo Samuel could return in Week 4, though, so Aiyuk will look to establish himself this Sunday against the Giants. However, it may be Nick Mullens under center if Jimmy Garoppolo isn't recovered from a high-ankle sprain.
Published: Tue, Sep 22 at 1:35pm by Rotowire.com
Ditches hamstring injury
Aiyuk (hamstring) wasn't listed on the 49ers' injury report Wednesday.
Analysis: Aiyuk missed his first potential game as a professional this past Sunday, but the 2020 first-round pick now is poised to make his debut this weekend against the Jets. With the hamstring injury behind him, he may serve as one of Jimmy Garoppolo's top receivers right away. Not only is Deebo Samuel (foot) on injured reserve, but stud tight end George Kittle is tending to a sprained left knee. Currently, Kendrick Bourne, Aiyuk, Trent Taylor, Dante Pettis and newcomer Mohamed Sanu are the healthy…read more
Could return Week 2
Coach Kyle Shanahan believes Aiyuk (hamstring) will return for Sunday's road game versus the Jets, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk tweaked his left hamstring Aug. 23 and was diagnosed with a mild strain that extended into Week 1 prep. After putting in a DNP/LP/LP practice regimen last week, he received a questionable tag but eventually was inactive this past Sunday against the Cardinals. His activity level at Wednesday's practice could be the first sign that active status is likely Week 2, but ultimately his availability could come down to the wire again. If he's able to return, Aiyuk likely would be one of the…read more
Won't suit up Sunday
Aiyuk (hamstring) is listed as inactive Sunday versus the Cardinals, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk will be sidelined for his first potential NFL action due to a mild hamstring strain that has plagued him since Aug. 23 and held him to a DNP/LP/LP practice regimen in advance of the season opener. With Aiyuk out and Deebo Samuel (foot) on injured reserve, the 49ers will be shorthanded at wide receiver. Kendrick Bourne, Trent Taylor, Dante Pettis and Richie James will be the options available to Jimmy Garoppolo.
Questionable to make NFL debut
Aiyuk (hamstring) remained limited Friday at practice and is listed as questionable for Sunday's game against the Cardinals, Darren Urban of the Cardinals' official site reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk closes out the week with back-to-back limited sessions after being held out entirely Wednesday. Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports Bay Area believes the rookie could have a limited role even if he's active for the season opener, with the hamstring injury and corresponding missed practice time potentially restricting his involvement in the offense. There's also some concern that poor air quality in Santa Clara could force the NFL to relocate or postpone the game, so it's a messy situation all…read more
Published: Fri, Sep 11 at 2:08pm by Rotowire.com
Elevates to limited Thursday
Aiyuk (hamstring) was limited in practice Thursday, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk took the first step toward being available Week 1 after dealing with a mild left hamstring strain during the later stages of training camp. He seems to have a far better chance of suiting up Week 1 versus the Cardinals than Deebo Samuel (foot), who has yet to practice this week. Friday's injury report could clear up the situation once and for all, but in the end the 49ers' aren't required to make a final decision on Samuel or Aiyuk until 90 minutes before Sunday's 4:25 p.m. ET kickoff.
Published: Thu, Sep 10 at 2:57pm by Rotowire.com
Doesn't practice Wednesday
Aiyuk (hamstring) didn't practice Wednesday, David Lombardi of The Athletic reports.
Analysis: Coach Kyle Shanahan expected as much as Aiyuk looks to put a mild left hamstring strain behind him. The rookie first-round pick has two more opportunities to prove his health before Sunday's contest against the Cardinals, but the 49ers' receiving corps would be shorthanded if one or both of Aiyuk and Deebo Samuel (foot) sit out this weekend.
Unlikely to practice Wednesday
San Francisco head coach Kyle Shanahan said that he doesn't expect Aiyuk (hamstring) to practice Wednesday, David Lombardi of The Athletic reports.
Analysis: The 49ers' first official injury report of the season will be released later Wednesday, revealing whether or not Aiyuk was actually able to put any work in. Even if he's listed as a non-participant Wednesday as expected, the rookie first-round pick would still have a shot at playing in Sunday's season opener against the Cardinals with limited activity in session Thursday or Friday.
Published: Wed, Sep 9 at 12:39pm by Rotowire.com
Remains sidelined
Aiyuk (hamstring) did not participate in Monday's team practice, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Head coach Kyle Shanahan stated that he still hoped Aiyuk would return to practice soon after suffering a mild hamstring strain Aug. 23, but the rookie wideout remains sidelined on the first day of organized team activities this week. The team didn't offer much of a concrete update on either Aiyuk or fellow playmaker Deebo Samuel (foot), but expect to see a clearer picture of what the 49ers' starting wideout corps will look like as we progress later in the practice week. Kendrick Bourne, Dante…read more
Published: Tue, Sep 8 at 1:38am by Rotowire.com
Could return to practice soon
Head coach Kyle Shanahan said that he is hopeful Aiyuk (hamstring) can return to practice next week, Jennifer Lee Chan of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk suffered a mild hamstring strain during practice Aug. 23, and his status for Week 1 is currently up in the air. If the rookie is indeed able to return to practice next week, it would bode well for his availability for the 49ers' season opener against the Cardinals on Sept. 13. Aiyuk may be thrust into a starting role if fellow injured wideout Deebo Samuel (foot) is unable to suit up to begin the year. Either way, the 22-year-old put himself in position to have a role in Kyle Shanahan's…read more
Published: Thu, Sep 3 at 8:34pm by Rotowire.com
Deemed 'week-to-week'
Coach Kyle Shanahan called Aiyuk "week-to-week" due to a mild left hamstring strain, Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com reports.
Analysis: Prior to suffering the injury at Sunday's practice, Aiyuk was thoroughly impressing in camp. He may have been helped by the absence of Deebo Samuel (foot) and others in the receiving corps, but the rookie first-round pick's performance on the field was helping to put himself on the fantasy radar. Now, Aiyuk will focus on his recovery with the aim of getting healthy by the 49ers' regular-season opener Sept. 13 versus the Cardinals.
Published: Tue, Aug 25 at 12:53pm by Rotowire.com
Tweaks hamstring
Aiyuk (hamstring) was unable to finish practice Sunday after he "appeared to come up lame after a deep route," Jennifer Lee Chan of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: Nick Wagoner of ESPN.com adds that Aiyuk, who "was in the midst of another strong practice," appeared to tweak his hamstring on the play. As long as the wideout's injury doesn't linger, the 25th overall pick in the 2020 draft figures to see a key role in the 49ers' passing attack from the get-go, with projected starter Deebo Samuel still recovering from a foot injury.
Published: Sun, Aug 23 at 12:23pm by Rotowire.com
May see role elevated early on
Aiyuk is a candidate to fill in for injured starter, Deebo Samuel (foot), to begin the regular season, Josh Schrock of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: Samuel was lined up to serve as the 49ers' top wide receiver following his stellar 2019 rookie campaign, but an offseason foot injury has put his status for Week 1 in jeopardy. With GM John Lynch stating that his top wideout could miss multiple games to begin the season, Aiyuk could be in line to replace his production out of the gate. The first-round pick out of Arizona State was high on coach Kyle Shanahan's draft board in this year's receiver-heavy draft, even drawing comparison to Hall of…read more
Published: Thu, Jul 30 at 9:20pm by Rotowire.com
Signs rookie deal
Aiyuk signed a four-year, 12.5 million contract with the 49ers on Friday, Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk, who the team selected 25th overall this past April, was added to help fill the void created by the offseason departure of Emmanuel Sanders. With Deebo Samuel now dealing with a foot injury that could impact his early-season status, the rookie could see a bigger role out of the gate than originally anticipated. Though Aiyuk's 4.5 time in the 40-yard dash wasn't anything special, the 6-foot, 200-pounder does possess short-area explosiveness and displayed both big-play and after-the-catch…read more
Published: Fri, Jun 26 at 1:32pm by Rotowire.com
May be needed right away
With Deebo Samuel recovering from foot surgery, the 49ers may need to give Aiyuk a bigger role than initially planned early in the season, Matt Barrows of The Athletic reports.
Analysis: Aiyuk and Samuel both are known for their prowess picking up yards after the catch, a trait that's especially valuable in Kyle Shanahan's horizontally oriented offense. The rookie first-round pick already had a decent shot to earn a starting job before the Samuel injury, as he was supposed to compete for snaps with the likes of Kendrick Bourne, Trent Taylor, Jalen Hurd and Dante Pettis. While Samuel expects to complete his rehab process in approximately 10 weeks, other reports put the estimate…read more
Published: Fri, Jun 19 at 7:51am by Rotowire.com
Deemed healthy
Aiyuk (abdomen) has been medically cleared, Eric Branch of the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
Analysis: The 49ers made Aiyuk the 25th pick of the 2020 draft less than three weeks after he had core muscle surgery. He seems to have made a quick recovery, as he's already working out with quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo and other teammates at San Jose State. The rookie should be ready for the start of training camp later this summer, hoping to earn a starting job across from Deebo Samuel at wide receiver.
Not guaranteed starting job
Aiyuk (core muscle surgery) will have to compete for a significant role on offense during training camp, Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports Bay Area reports.
Analysis: The 49ers traded up to select Aiyuk with the 25th pick in the 2020 NFL Draft, but he isn't guaranteed a starting job out of the gate even with the departure of 2019 starter Emmanuel Sanders. The 22-year-old will have to prove himself in camp and quickly learn coach Kyle Shanahan's offensive scheme in order to earn snaps alongside Deebo Samuel over experienced receivers Kendrick Bourne (outside) and Trent Taylor (slot). Aiyuk also has a core muscle injury to overcome once organized team…read more
Published: Tue, May 5 at 3:35am by Rotowire.com
Diggs loses track of Aiyuk on WR's 37-yard catch and runSun, Jan 16 at 2:48pm
Dallas Cowboys cornerback Trevon Diggs loses track of San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk on WR's 37-yard catch and run.
Brandon Aiyuk's Herculean reach for first-down marker merits attentionSun, Jan 16 at 2:35pm
San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk's Herculean reach for first-down marker merits attention.
Which NFC players could be true wild cards this weekend? Carr, L.T. weigh inThu, Jan 13 at 5:05pm
Which NFC players could be true wild cards this weekend? NFL Network's David Carr, LaDainian Tomlinson weigh in.
Aiyuk settles in open sideline window for 31-yard catch and runSun, Jan 9 at 3:00pm
San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk settles in an open sideline window for a 31-yard catch and run.
Aiyuk's 25-yard catch and run gives 49ers shot at FG to end halfSun, Jan 9 at 2:45pm
San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk's 25-yard catch and run gives the 49ers a shot at a field goal to end the half.
Aiyuk snags contested grab on Garoppolo's 19-yard strike in strideSun, Jan 9 at 2:43pm
San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk snags a contested grab on 49ers quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo's 19-yard strike in stride.
Trey Lance keeps 49ers playoff hopes alive in Week 17 | Baldy's BreakdownsTue, Jan 4 at 1:11pm
NFL analyst Brian Baldinger breaks down San Francisco 49ers QB Trey Lance's performance in the Week 17 win over the Houston Texans.
Brandon Aiyuk spins like a top en route to 43-yard catch and runSun, Jan 2 at 2:55pm
San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk breaks through the Houston Texans defense for a 43-yard gain.
Brandon Aiyuk makes miraculous toe-tapping catch along sidelineSun, Jan 2 at 2:34pm
San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk shows off his toe-drag swag against the Houston Texans.
Garoppolo caps game-tying 95-yard drive with TD to AiyukThu, Dec 23 at 8:05pm
San Francisco 49ers quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo caps a game-tying 95-yard drive with a touchdown to wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk.
WR #11 SF | Manager: FA

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Mistakes happen in science
Posted on April 14, 2015 by Brian McGill
Meg recently wrote a post acknowledging that crying in science was pretty common place. It really touched a nerve and went viral. Meg's opening syllogism was masterful: humans cry, scientists are human, therefore scientists will cry.
I want to touch on an even more sensitive syllogism: humans make mistakes, scientists are human, therefore scientists will make mistakes. And a corollary – some mistakes will make it into print.
People obsessed with preserving a united front against science deniers might try to pretend this isn't true. But it is true. This rarely acknowledged truth about scientists is fresh in everybody's minds because of a recent retraction of an ecology paper (due to an honest mistake). I'm not even going to link to it since it is a distraction from my main point to single out one group of individuals when I'm talking about collective responsibility (but if its too distracting not to know Jeremy linked to it on Friday).
What I am finding revealing is not that a retraction occurred but other people's reactions to the fact that a retraction occurred. There seems to be a lot of distancing and blaming. The first commentor on retraction watch even went one step further and very sloppily and inaccurately started throwing around the phrase "fraud scandal" (really? the topic of mistake is so taboo we can't differentiate the profound difference between mistake and fraud?)
My reactions were rather different, going in order of occurrence, and probably progressively more profoundly were:
Ouch – I feel bad for the authors
I'm impressed with the way the authors handled this – it took a lot of courage
That's science working the way it is supposed to
There's no need to expand on the first one (except its worth noting I don't know any of the author's personally so this was more of a 1 degree removed member of my community form of empathy).
But I think it is worth dwelling on the second one for a moment. It must have been very tempting to bluster and deny that there were substantive enough mistakes to require a retraction and hoped this faded away. We all know this strategy has a decent shot at working. In an infamous case in evolution (UPDATE the link in Jeremy's post is broken – follow this link), it worked for years until a co-author took it upon himself to self-publish and blow the whistle (nobody talks about this but the journals have an obvious interest in not highlighting a mistake). But these author's didn't weasel in any fashion. And they thought about the good of science before the good of their careers. Good for them!
As for the 3rd reaction – this is not a failure of science. It is a success of science! It is science working as it is supposed to. And it is exactly why science has a claim to a degree of rigor that other modes of thought don't have. The reason my syllogism doesn't eliminate science as a paragon of correctness is that – contrary to the popular view about lone geniuses – science is not about individuals or single papers. It is about the community and the total body of evidence. One individual can be right, wrong, a crack-pot, a genius, mistaken, right for the wrong reasons, and etc. But the community as a whole (given time) checks each other and identifies wrong ideas and mistakes. The hive mind will get the important things right with some time. If you read the details, this is exactly what happened. Good for science!
The last reaction is the touchiest of all (it could have been me*). Of course I do not knowingly have any mistakes in print. But I could have a mistake out there I don't know about. And I've caught some that came close. And I could make one in the future. Should I be thinking that? Should I be admitting that in a public blog? I sure hope your answer to both of these questions is yes. If I'm not asking the first quesiton (and admitting the possibility) how can I be putting my best effort into avoiding mistakes. The same for the community context. And I'm pretty sure any other honest scientist cannot say they are 100% sure they never had made a mistake and never will make a mistake. 95% sure – I hope so. Maybe even 99% sure. But 100% sure? I don't trust you if that is what you claim. Every lab I've ever worked in or been close to (meaning dozens) have challenges and errors with data and coding and replicability of analysis. Most of them are discovered and fixed (or sadly prevent publication). But has anybody here ever run an analysis, gotten a particular t-statistic/p-value and written it up, and then run the analysis later and gotten a slightly different number and never been able to recreate the original? Anybody have one or two sample IDs that got lost in the shuffle and you don't know what they are? These are admittedly small mistakes that probably didn't change the outcome. But it is only a difference of degree. And I bet most of you know of bigger mistakes that almost got out the door.
I want to speak for a minute more specifically about coding. In this day and age nearly every paper has some coding behind it. It might just be an R script to run the analyses (and probably dropping some rows with incomplete data etc along the way). But it might be like the stuff that goes on in my lab including 1000+ line computer simulations and 1000+ line big data analysis. Software engineers have done a lot of formal analysis of coding errors. And to summarize a lot of literature, they are numerous and the best we can do is move asymptotically towards eliminating them. Getting rid of even 90-95% of the errors takes a lot of work..Even in highly structured anti-error environments like NASA or the medical field mistakes slip through (like the mis-transcribed formula that caused a rocket to crash). And science is anything but a highly-structured anti-error environment (and we shouldn't be – our orientation is on innovation). In a future post, I will go through some of the tricks I use to validate and have faith in my code.. But that would be a distraction here (so you might want to save your comments on how you do it for that post too). The bottom line though is I know enough software engineering not to fool myself. I know there are errors in my code. I've caught a couple of one line mistakes that totally changed the results while I was in the middle of writing up my first draft. I think and hope that the remaining errors are small. But I could be wrong. And if I am wrong and made a whopping mistake, I hope you find my mistake!
The software industry's effort at studying errors was just mentioned. But the medical and airline industries have recently devoted a lot of attention to the topic of mistakes as well (their mistakes are often fatal).The Institute of Medicine released a report entitled "To Err is Hman" with this telling quote:
".. the majority of medical errors do not result from individual recklessness or the actions of a particular group–this is not a "bad apple" problem. More commonly, errors are caused by faulty systems, processes, and conditions that lead people to make mistakes or fail to prevent them."
Broad brushing the details, both medicine and the airlines have come to the conclusion that the best way to avoid mistakes are to 1) destroy the myth of infallibility, 2) eliminate the notion that raising the possibility of a mistake is offensive, 3) introduce a culture of regularly talking about the possibility of mistakes and analyzing mistakes made for lessons learned, and 4) make avoiding mistakes a collective group responsibility.
I think arguably science figured this all out a couple of hundred years ago. But it is worth making explicit again. And per #3 it is worth continuously re-evaluating how we're doing. In particular we do #4 extremely well. We have peer review, post-publication review (which is stronger for prominent and surprising results), attempts at replication etc. We're professional skeptics. We also do pretty well at #2; you expect and accept your work being criticized and picked apart (even if nobody enjoys it!). #1 is more of a mixed bag. I've heard a lot of "it could never happen in my lab" comments recently, which is exactly the myth of infallibility. And the same for #3 – I haven't yet heard anybody say "I'm going to change X in my lab" in response to the recent incident. And more generally across #1-#4, I would suggest that coding is novel enough in ecology that we have not yet fully developed a robust set of community practices around preventing coding errors.
In conclusion, I am sure somebody is going to say I am glorifying mistakes in science. I'm not. Mistakes* are unfortunate and we all need to (and I think all do) put a lot of effort into avoiding them. But I sincerely believe there is no way to guarantee individual scientists do not make mistakes. At the same time, I also sincerely believe that a well constructed scientific community is robust enough to find and correct all important mistakes over time. Which means it really matters whether we respond to mistakes by finger pointing or examining our common culture and how to improve it. The later is the conversation I want to have.
*Probably important to reiterate here that I'm talking about mistakes, not fraud. Whole different kettle of fish. I presume most people can see that, which is why I am not belaboring it.
This entry was posted in Issues by Brian McGill. Bookmark the permalink.
About Brian McGill
I am a macroecologist at the University of Maine. I study how human-caused global change (especially global warming and land cover change) affect communities, biodiversity and our global ecology.
View all posts by Brian McGill →
42 thoughts on "Mistakes happen in science"
ScientistSeesSquirrel on April 14, 2015 at 12:16 pm said:
This is really important, Brian – well said. Spookily, I caught a mistake in a figure moments after reading this… didn't change the analysis, but somehow I plotted the wrong column and inserted the plot into my MS draft. Can I be 100% sure there's no similar mistake anywhere in all my published work? Nope, and neither can anyone else…
Falko Buschke on April 14, 2015 at 12:23 pm said:
Great post, Brian.
There is a spelling mistake in your link to "To Err is Human"…but it is actually quite beautiful in a poetic way considering the theme of your post (and the link)!
I agree with you that the likelihood of spotting your own mistakes is directly proportional to your acceptance of your own fallibility. And let's face it, given a choice, most of us will rather find our own mistakes then have them pointed out to us by others.
Marten Scheffer had a short opinion piece in PNAS last year with the following quotes by Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow: "If you are not wrong two-thirds of your time, you are not doing very well." and "if you are wrong you had better find out yourself, not only because it is more pleasant, but also because it helps you to learn."
Andrew Rassweiler on April 14, 2015 at 4:27 pm said:
I assumed that was the spelling used in the medical report. Pretty disappointed it is not actually.
Brian McGill on April 14, 2015 at 4:47 pm said:
It should have been! I can either claim a creative subconscious or blame late night typing. I of course prefer the former: 🙂
Meghan Duffy on April 14, 2015 at 6:45 pm said:
@Andrew: Same here!
Jeremy Fox on April 14, 2015 at 6:52 pm said:
@Andrew: Same here! 🙂
Jeremy Fox on April 14, 2015 at 12:39 pm said:
Very well said. It's depressing and surprising that it needs saying and isn't totally, boringly obvious to everyone. I just had a frustrating exchange with a regular commenter over on Andrew Gelman's blog, someone who's co-authored with Gelman (so not a crank). He was arguing quite explicitly that the only acceptable rate of mistakes is zero, and that the only reason mistakes happen in science is because scientists haven't learned how to "audit" like businesses and governments have. The notion that even auditors (and auditors of the auditors, and etc.) also make mistakes was foreign to him.
Advocates of post-publication review won't want to admit it, but unfortunately one big reason people comment on PubPeer and Retraction Watch is the chance to express self-righteous fury without having to feel guilty about it. You get to point the finger and rip people on the assumption that they deserve it because they must be either unethical or incompetent. So that when good scientists make honest mistakes and correct them the instant they're discovered, the commenters at RW tie themselves in knots trying to find some excuse to keep ripping the scientists in question rather than praising them.
Such people think they're defending science as a whole from evil/sloppy individual scientists. What they're actually doing in cases like the one that prompted this post is making science as a whole worse, by hurting good, honest scientists and creating strong incentives for people to hide honest mistakes and refuse to admit them when they're discovered.
Anon on April 15, 2015 at 3:32 pm said:
The blame for review lynch mobs rest squarely on the shoulders of scientists like this – http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/08/07/when-authors-forget-to-fake-an-elemental-analysis/ – who for quite some time, have gotten away with publishing fraudulent/irreproducible work with impunity.
There are two main problems in science and both stem from the toxic bully culture.
The first is that mistakes (at least by the students and junior researchers) are not permitted in science (which is ridiculous). Junior researchers are considered incompetent when they make mistakes, tenured-professors are 'distracted' or 'overworked' or 'mislead' by their students. It's not uncommon to watch senior scientists rip apart students, etc at group meetings, seminars, and the like. This behavior is by far the more likely cause of scientists being reluctant to admit to mistakes, than post-publication peer review.
It's time to accept that, mistakes are a part of research and will happen to everyone, not just junior scientists/students, that they aren't always the result of incompetence (overwork and lack of sleep can also cause this (90 hr weeks are pretty common). If we want innovative and creative scientists then we need to allow for mistakes, which aren't the same as a lack of understanding of the fundamentals.
The second problem is that some scientists erroneously believe that the majority of scientists are honest. If someone is a prof, or graduate student they get away with things that would cause undergrads to be expelled from university, because the assumption is that profs and grad students (by virtue of their positions/or perhaps importance to the university system) make innocent (if incompetent) mistakes (grad students) and oversights (profs), whereas undergrads who behave in a questionable manner are cheaters trying to fake their way through their degrees.
Academic scientists are just like everybody else, and when you create a system that can be gamed, there are always people who will step up and attempt to game it. Having academic titles doesn't automatically mean that you're dealing with an honest person. The fact that the department needs TAs, and PIs need people to work in the lab, doesn't automatically mean that those people are honest (just essential to the university (which are different concepts)).
There's plenty of incentive for dishonest people to cheat. Many times there's millions of dollars in grant money, prestigious research positions, tenure, graduation, letters of recommendation at stake. Students with abusive advisors are put under tremendous pressure to do what their advisors say, and many PIs are put under pressure by their institutions and the community at large – http://www.cancerletter.com/articles/20150109_1
Yet nobody is talking about the pain and suffering that whistleblowers who try to call out scientific fraud experience from their peers after doing the right thing. Many of them are pushed out of science altogether – http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/life-after-whistleblowing/2014776.article
Why are things so bleak for whistleblowers if academia is stocked full of honest scientists who are just making innocent mistakes?
Scientists in academia are under enormous pressure to publish and obtain grants, and the dishonest ones cheat. This really isn't that shocking since similar behavior has been observed pretty much everywhere else. Look at wall street, look at politicians, look at athletes taking steroids, etc.
As such, we need post-publication peer review (much in the way professional sports needs drug testing), and that process won't be served by automatically assuming that every mistake is an honest mistake.
I agree with you that honest mistakes ought to be treated as such, and sadly there are trolls on both sides of the fence, but there have to be more serious consequences for researchers who are busted committing fraud, and I think it's dangerous to assume that most researchers caught up in scandals on post-pub peer review sites are simply innocent victims of the lynch mob. Some are, but many aren't.
I think your point about whistle blowing is an important one. We usually extract a terrible context from whistle blowers. IN the context of mistakes, just as it should be easy to acknowledge a mistake, it ought to be easy to suggest a mistake.
In the context of fraud, the stakes are much higher, but we have to give whisteblowers more protection. The story about Trivers that I linked to above is sad but pretty typical
I'm sure that's a contributing factor. But it's a (partial) explanation, not a justification. That somebody has committed fraud is not a justification for attacking people who haven't.
"It's not uncommon to watch senior scientists rip apart students, etc at group meetings, seminars, and the like. This behavior is by far the more likely cause of scientists being reluctant to admit to mistakes, than post-publication peer review. "
Clearly your experience has been very different than mine, or that of the scientists I know. The main reasons the scientists I know are hesitant to admit mistakes is not that they were bullied as students. Bullying absolutely happens, and it shouldn't–but most senior academics aren't bullies (see here for discussion: https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/ask-us-anything-academic-bullying-in-ecology/). Most scientists hesitate to admit mistakes first and foremost because they hold themselves to high standards, and so feel embarrassed when a mistake slips through (and no, they don't hold themselves to high standards because they were bullied as students). And I'm sorry, but another big reason they hesitate to admit mistakes is because they're afraid that others will leap to the conclusion that they're incompetent or fraudsters. But don't just take my word for it: http://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2014/05/10/co-rex-ions/
"The second problem is that some scientists erroneously believe that the majority of scientists are honest."
Please provide links to data showing that the majority of scientists are dishonest.
And if the majority of scientists are dishonest, then it's not clear why we should accept that mistakes are a part of research. There are serious tensions between your first and second points, so that I'm having trouble understanding your overall views.
"There's plenty of incentive for people to cheat."
Yes, and there are plenty of incentives for them not to. And in any case, incentives are one thing and actual behavior another. You seem to have confused the statement "there are incentives to cheat" with "the majority of scientists cheat". It's a mistake I've made myself in another context (incentives for scientists to do peer reviews)–falsely assuming that, because there are strong incentives for people to behave a certain way, that they either do or soon will all start behaving according to those incentives. See this post: https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/do-individual-ecologists-review-in-proportion-to-how-much-they-submit/
I'm not sure why you're talking about fraud or whisteblowers at all, given that this post is about honest mistakes. You seem to be committing the very mistake that the post (and the first part of your comment) seeks to avoid: conflating fraud and honest mistakes. You ask why no one's talking about the pain and suffering of whistleblowers. The reason is because the treatment of whistleblowers has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post. We're not discussing the treatment of whistleblowers for the same reason we're not discussing the drought in California. EDIT: I withdraw this remark, treatment of whistleblowers has come up in the comments. Which I take it is why you brought it up? Or are you suggesting that the original post should've talked about the treatment of whistleblowers?
"that process won't be served by automatically assuming that every mistake is an honest mistake."
Neither Brian or any commenter said or implied that we should assume every mistake is an honest mistake. If you think otherwise, please quote the relevant passage. EDIT: And note that in the case that prompted this post, there are no assumptions involved. The RW post, which quotes extensively from all participants, makes absolutely clear that this is an honest mistake. So it's not a matter of assuming an honest mistake in the absence of any information to the contrary, or despite contrary information–we have information demonstrating that it *is* an honest mistake. And yet the very first commenter over there tosses around references to fraud. It's this kind of behavior that motivated my comment, to which you're replying.
"I think it's dangerous to assume that most researchers caught up in scandals on post-pub peer review sites are simply innocent victims of the lynch mob. Some are, but many aren't."
Again, nobody ever said this. If you think otherwise, please provide a quote. You clearly have very strongly held views, but with respect it seems like they're so strongly held that they're causing you to misread the views of others. You're trying to put words in other people's mouths, and that can only hinder productive discussion.
We're happy to have comments that disagree with the post. But putting words in other people's mouths, wandering off topic, and making very strong assertions without evidence does not contribute to productive debate.
kerkhoffa on April 14, 2015 at 1:29 pm said:
Great post Brian. I recently found a coding error in a large data analysis during a second round of review – no change in results, but if the reviewers had been easier on my paper it could have slipped into print quite easily. I was also grateful that the reviewers and editor were supportive through the process, rather than punitive. I look forward to the post on your best practices for guarding against coding errors.
The Typewriter on April 14, 2015 at 3:01 pm said:
Reblogged this on The Typewriter.
So here's a question: when it comes to error checking–not just coding errors, but any sort–how do you distinguish between checks that are worth doing and checks that aren't? Not just because every error check is costly in various ways, but because sometimes guarding against one sort of error can actually make a different sort of error more likely to occur and/or less likely to be detected. Is it something you have to decide case-by-case or are there well-established general rules of thumb to follow? Honest question.
I've been thinking about this this morning because of a discussion over on a baseball blog (of all places!) of "cover your ass security" against terrorism: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/14/we-no-longer-need-the-terrorists-were-now-so-good-at-terrorizing-ourselves/ That is, costly security procedures that don't make us any safer from terrorists, or even make us *less* safe, but that get used because it's important for those in charge to be seen to be "doing something". I'm wondering if there are analogies here to the demands in science for increased error checking, fraud prevention/detection, replication, etc.
I also wonder if risk compensation is something we need to worry about in this context. If you build error checking procedures into your scientific workflow, is there any possibility that people get lazy in compensation? (e.g., your lab says it has gold-standard error checking procedures X, Y, and Z, causing reviewers to not bother looking closely at your data and code) Honest question to which I have no idea of the answer–I'm sure it's something that lots of people must've thought about and worked on.
Certainly in the software engineering world it is widely recognized that it is a lot of work to eliminate errors and that there are trade-offs. If it is the program running a pace-maker it is expected to do just about everything to eliminate errors. But for more mundane programs (e.g. OS X, Word) it is recognized that perfection is too costly.
Also re your last paragraph, I know in the medical world, they worry a lot about if there is a computer checking drug prescriptions will the humans still bother. There have to be multiple checkers and each needs to make a good faith effort.
Yes, the consequences of an error must be key here. Which raises the sobering thought that most errors in scientific papers aren't worth checking for or eliminating! After all, a substantial fraction of papers are never cited, and only a tiny fraction have any appreciable influence even on their own subfield or contribute in any appreciable way to any policy decision or other application.
xkcd once made fun of people who are determined to correct others who are "wrong on the internet" (https://xkcd.com/386/). It's funny not just because it's mostly futile to correct the errors of people who are wrong on the internet, but because it's mostly not worth the effort to do so. I wonder if we should consider the possibility that most (not all!) one-off errors in scientific papers are like people who are "wrong on the internet". (EDIT: To clarify, I mean one-off errors that already get through existing error checks. I'm not suggesting that scientists quit doing most/all of the error checking they already do–that would be disastrous! I'm questioning whether we all need to do substantially more error checking than we already do.)
What worries me much more are systematic errors afflicting science as a whole, that arise even when individual scientists do their jobs well–zombie ideas and all that.
cboettig on April 14, 2015 at 5:22 pm said:
Jeremy's comments about the consequences of the errors really resonates with me here.
Things that the authors could recognize as mistakes are only one of the reasons a result might not be true for all time everywhere; after all (most) scientific papers are not mathematical proofs. Most results have so many contingencies already — statistical assumptions are rarely met strictly, models must make approximations, data is noisy, perhaps not representative, etc. There is little utility in validating the little details at great cost while ignoring all of these contingencies. The good ideas get revisited and tested time and again (one of my physics professors once told me that Einstein's theory of relativity was tested about once every minute). Like Jeremy says, the rest is mostly lost to time, right or wrong.
For me, this is why the publishing of data and methods are more often more valuable — the open-source philosophy of acknowledging that all complex projects (code) have some mistakes and "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow." Arguing that individual researchers do more error checking than they already do is both counter to existing incentives and can only slow science down; sharing speeds things up. I love Brian's thesis here that we need to acknowledge that humans make mistakes. Because publishing code or data makes it easier for others to discover mistakes, it is often cited in anonymous surveys as a major reason researchers don't share; myself included. Most of this will still be ignored, just as most open source software projects are; but it helps ensure that the really interesting and significant ideas get worked over and refined and debugged into robust pillars of our discipline, and makes it harder for an idea to be both systemic and wrong.
"and makes it harder for an idea to be both systemic and wrong."
Hmm, not sure I buy that last bit. The zombie ideas in ecology of which I'm aware wouldn't have been prevented or corrected by more sharing of data and code, or even more sharing in general (e.g., everybody publishing all their ideas in some open-access venue). But I think you're thinking along the right lines. We want science as a whole to not have, or to quickly correct, widespread systemic errors.
I don't have any great ideas about how to make that happen. In part because widespread, systemic errors seem to come in different flavors. For instance, I'm not sure that the origins and persistence of a widespread conceptual error like r/K selection have much to do with the origins and persistence of a widespread statistical error like "the garden of forking paths" that Andrew Gelman's always banging on about. Or maybe there are important commonalities here that I'm not seeing?
Wendell on April 14, 2015 at 3:24 pm said:
Perhaps formal retractions should only be used for cases of fraud/misconduct. It is troubling that honest errors are handled by the same mechanism. It is certainly appropriate to publish a clarification/explanation/description of mistaken conclusions under these circumstances. But I don't see why we have to call that a "retraction"
Completely agree… In fact, just like negative data, sometimes these errors can actually be useful to the rest of the community (i.e. prevent them from falling down the same rabbit hole) and in cases where that isn't true what does it hurt to differentiate innocent mistakes from retractions?
Great post, Brian. I had to correct a high-profile paper after finding an error in the main data file. When I opened the file months after the paper was published and found the error in the data file, I nearly vomited. Literally. I didn't sleep at all that night. It was absolutely clear to me that I had to redo the analyses and correct the record, but it was also incredibly stressful to do that. And that was a case where, in the end, the results fortunately were unaffected! I reported it all to the journal and issued a formal correction.
Overall, the experience was incredibly anxiety-provoking for me, not because of anything anyone else said (people were incredibly supportive), but because it meant I hadn't lived up to the ideal of a scientist who doesn't make errors. But, as you said, everyone makes mistakes. We need to do our best to avoid them, of course, but we also need to create a culture where people feel okay coming forward to correct mistakes. That will not happen if people are vilified for doing so.
As far as I can tell from talking with others about it, when people find these errors in their own work, they feel like an utter failure as a scientist, even if the work hadn't been published yet. What I try to stress when talking to students is that mistakes happen, even when we are trying very hard to avoid them. The most important thing is, as you said, to correct the mistake and analyze how it happened and ways to avoid similar errors in the future.
And, with that said, I need to go finish the readings for today's lab meeting, where we're starting a series of meetings on how to collect and store data in ways that reduce the possibility of mistakes. 🙂
AEMcDonald on April 14, 2015 at 4:01 pm said:
I have the utmost respect for scientists who recognize that they have made a mistake and issue a retraction. I believe that it takes a lot of integrity to do so. Everyone makes mistakes and some of these are going to make it into publications; it's what you do next that really matters.
David Sabaj Stahl on April 14, 2015 at 5:15 pm said:
Two issues come to mind concerning "mistakes". I agree some mistakes are "honest" in nature. By honest, I mean every reasonable effort was pursued to prevent a mistake, but nonetheless it occurred. Mistakes also occur as a result of slop and laziness. These are intentional mistakes, because even though no one was conscious of them when they happened, there is no excusing dereliction of duty. I have also seen mistakes become fraud, and I am still contending with that very issue. In this instance, the PI was the epitome of slop and laziness. She committed, then published, errors of a magnitude I had never seen. Then she and her employer endeavored at all costs to conceal the misconduct. That is when a mistake becomes fraud, and I am betting it happens more than we realize, given the somewhat common occurrence of inflated egos in science.
I think the nuance involving the issue of retraction is a real bugaboo. We should allow for corrections concerning honest mistakes, but should retract articles involving intentional mistakes as I have defined it. The obvious problem is, how can we ever be certain we have differentiated the two?
If what we really care about is correcting the scientific record, then arguably we should seek to do that without worrying about why the error occurred–honest mistake, incompetence, fraud, some combination, whatever. In part because the reason for the error ultimately is irrelevant as far as science as a whole is concerned. In part because detecting errors is very different than figuring out the reasons for errors. For instance, as a peer reviewer I can detect certain sorts of errors-but I generally am not in the position to make any reliable inferences about the causes of those errors (except maybe in very rare cases where the error only has one possible cause). And in part because if you start trying to police the causes of errors in an ad hoc way, without agreed procedures to ensure fairness, you end up with the Wild West–vigilante justice and witch hunts. Which is a recipe for worse rather than better error correction, even leaving aside the damage it does to individual scientists. See https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/post-publication-review-signs-of-the-times/
Which isn't to say that nobody should ever care about the reasons for errors, but rather that the investigation of that should be decoupled from correction of the scientific record and left to the appropriate people or agencies (e.g., the ORI in cases of possible misconduct in federally-funded research in the US).
Agreed, which was why I mentioned the impossibility of ever really knowing the true source of error, short of an investigator issuing a mea culpa or a collaborator coming forward. Without divulging any details concerning the situation to which I refer about mistakes becoming fraud, as I do not wish to ensnare your blog in it, I discovered at least in this instance folks can go to excess in concealing mistakes, investigations not withstanding.
It might be relevant to note that in law 4 different scenarios are recognized (e.g. say in the case of a car accident):
1) accident – no criminal event
2) extreme negligence – is criminal (e.g. manslaughter)
3) leaving the scene of the accident (i.e. lack of accountability) – is criminal
4) done with intent – is criminal (analogy here being to scientific fraud)
I am of course talking about #1 – honest mistakes. For #3 I do believe lack of accountability about mistakes pointed out is morally wrong and culpable and should affect a scientist's reputation negatively. I have my own story on this front when I pointed out an error to somebody and it remains uncorrected 5 years later (but not important enough I am going to go whistleblower). Conceptually I think #2 (extreme negligence to avoid mistakes in science) is possible, but I think it is rare enough and is used so often to tar people into #4 who actually only committed #1 that I basically don't find it a useful category in science. I would rather keep the culture positive and biased towards encouraging reporting errors, not have people worry that if they acknowledge an error charges of negligence will soon follow.
Great way to categorize it, Brian. Yes, the issue of how far to take things like whistle blowing, at least for me, was a gut-wrencher… and I only made disclosures after exhausting all other options. I suppose that could be a topic for an entirely different blog post. But you and Jeremy are absolutely correct in that we must have an open atmosphere of trust such that people may feel secure in coming forward and correcting mistakes.
As it concerns the saga I was enmeshed with, I definitely walked away with the sense that the perpetrator just could not, under any circumstances, bring herself to admit fault for anything. Whether that was a character flaw, or the outcomes of training, or both remains a mystery to me anyway. But it has given me pause to the extent that I think we need to rethink the whole educational process in science & engineering. I suspect the pressure for perfection begins in the classroom and if that is the case, the fundamentals of education need a fix.
Jonas Kuppler on April 15, 2015 at 6:41 am said:
As somehow mentioned in the previous posts, I think we should only think about errors in publication, but also how we handle errors done by others in our working group/university to create a "culture positive and biased towards encouraging reporting errors" (B. McGill). Before this post I never really thought about it, but I think I handle a few thing not very well.
Yes- you are correct, people can be intimidated into not reporting mistakes. The reasons for this can be many-fold. Sometimes a person is perceived as an all-knowing Guru, and even though that person might be very approachable, the intellect is intimidating. Other times a person is simply abrasive, and that edginess causes others to fear what the response would be to a blunder. Sadly, some people are simply irrational, and they blame-game people akin to a public flogging… and no one enjoys that.
The thing I always try to remember is, how did I perceive the big dogs when I was say, 25 or 30 yo? In general, I was intimidated even when these folks were not intimidating outwardly. What has worked very well for me in recent years is self-deprecation. It kind of comes down to voting for the guy you would most likely have a beer with. Self-deprecation communicates to others you are fallible, that you have stumbled before, and that you are accepting of faults. For example, whenever I teach any course in science, my introductory lecture includes the story of how I failed an exam in a grad level course… and that the exam covered material I had studied & applied over the previous decade… YIKES!
Well, it happened and to this day I still can't figure out how I managed to blow questions I could answer in my sleep. It was just one of those days. But I recovered, and received a final grade of "A" nonetheless. I found students were MUCH MUCH more willing to approach me, and communicate to me their struggles and ask for help.
Pingback: Is it really that important to prevent and correct one-off honest errors in scientific papers? | Dynamic Ecology
Sam Schwarzkopf on April 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm said:
Great post! I completely agree.
Emilio M. Bruna on April 15, 2015 at 12:42 pm said:
Really fantastic post, thanks. As an Editor I would much prefer to see authors come forward with a correction for their paper in our journal than let it sit for fear of embarrassment, so that means both destigmatizing the making of mistakes (thanks for jump-starting that) and making it easy to correct mistakes. Now that journals are publishing online one would think it is easy to simply swap the original with a corrected version, with a footnote detailing the correction history like they do in newspapers (e.g., "Correction, March 26, 2015: This article originally had an incorrect version of figure 1a…the results") as opposed to (or in concert with if necessary) publishing a formal and separate Corrigendum. One could even identify all authors that cited the original version via WOS or SCOPUS and advise them the paper has been corrected.
My only concern from the Editor's seat is that too much of "mistakes are no big deal, they are easy to correct" might result in "don't worry about triple-checking, because if you make a mistake it is easy to correct". And then there are the hard cases, like the one that motivated your post – if the correction fundamentally changes the conclusions, do you retract or correct? I say for now just correct rather than retract, even if it leaves the paper without the punch that got it accepted in the first place. Doing so will help promote that cultural change for which you are advocating.
Pingback: Mistakes in papers & how to deal with them
"To err is human" (or hman) is part of a famous quote from Alexander Pope. I'm kind of surprised no one has yet quoted the whole thing:
"To err is human; to forgive, divine".
Radensudrajat on April 19, 2015 at 12:37 pm said:
I think there is no escape from human mistakes and certainly we should not be afraid of mistakes, not with the error we can learn from the mistakes that we did not do the same mistake.
Pingback: On finding errors in one's published analyses | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Friday links: a rare retraction in ecology, and more | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Friday links: Haeckel vs. Christmas cards, green + bond = green bond, phylogeny of baked goods, and more | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Friday links: Covid-19 vs. BES journals, Charles Darwin board game, and more | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Friday links: Epstein fallout continues at Harvard, memes vs. intro biostats, and more (includes quick poll) | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Friday links: Richard Lewontin 1929-2021, and more | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: What should you do when you get a result that seems wrong, but you can't find any problems in the underlying data or calculations? | Dynamic Ecology