Misconduct is ever increasing with the increasing science industry. The spectrum of misconduct is large – as I explained some years ago with an extended version of the N-S-C Diagram. Unfortunately, protection of whistleblowers as well as quality of university investigations remain low (or are even suppressed for various reasons). This is also the view of … Continue reading Scientific misconduct deserves more attention and better research committees →

Philosophy

How frequent is scientific misconduct?

16.08.2017 admin

Figure 3. Admission rates of Questionable Research Practices (QRP) in self- and non-self-reports. N indicates the number of survey questions. Boxplots show median and interquartiles. Reference https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.g003 Correct answer: at least 20%

Philosophy

Scientific misconduct

11.08.2017 admin

For my upcoming talk next month in Milano I have updated my 2006 diagram schema, including the following items

Philosophy

Non-fake journals can be recognized

23.07.2018 admin

according to https://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing/ by 1. Peer review process 2. Governing Body 3. Editorial team/contact information 4. Author fees 5. Copyright 6. Identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct 7. Ownership and management 8. Web site 9. Name of journal 10. Conflicts of interest 11. Access 12. Revenue sources 13. Advertising 14. Publishing schedule … Continue reading Non-fake journals can be recognized →

Philosophy

Wissenschaft in der Filterblase?

1.12.2016 admin

Zuerstmal Entwarnung: die “Filterblase” ist keine Erfindung von Facebook, Zitat der SZ Jeden Tag fällt Facebook also Urteile und bringt Menschen in der öffentlichen Debatte zum Schweigen. Für das eigentliche Sperren und Löschen hat Facebook Arvato, ein Subunternehmen von Bertelsmann, engagiert … Wäre Facebook ein Staat, wäre es eine Diktatur. Trotzdem Entwarnung, die Filterblase ist … Continue reading Wissenschaft in der Filterblase? →

Software

Irreproducibility, once more

5.05.2016 admin

Francis Collins wrote in a commentary A growing chorus of concern, from scientists and laypeople, contends that the complex system for ensuring the reproducibility of biomedical research is failing and is in need of restructuring. As leaders of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), we share this concern and here explore some of the … Continue reading Irreproducibility, once more →

Philosophy

Value replicability not journal impact

7.01.2014 admin

There is an excellent comment on research misconduct at the brand new Pubmed Commons site by Dorothy Bishop: … Instead of valuing papers in top journals, we should be valuing research replicability. This would entail a massive change in our culture, but a start has already been made in my discipline of psychology (see http://www.nature.com).

Philosophy

The true reason for retractions?

3.10.2012 admin

Retractions are increasing anytime I look around retraction watch. A new PNAS paper now has the most thorough analysis of retractions: A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of … Continue reading The true reason for retractions? →

Philosophy

Price of poor research can surpass $5,000,000

1.10.2010 admin

A recent article in Nature Medicine finds that the price of misconduct probes can surpass $500,000. Sure, that may be expensive

Software

A passion for precision

10.01.2009 admin

The title is borrowed from the opening Lecture of Theodor Hänsch on July, 7th, 2006 at the The Euroscience Open Forum in Munich. Written 1/10/2009 With a never ending stream of genetic association studies in allergy research we are facing severe problems as most of these studies are never reproduced 1. The Lancet editors already … Continue reading A passion for precision →

Philosophy

Accurate reporting

8.07.2008 admin

One of the PLoS editors has a vocal report on a recent meeting “Why accurate reporting is an ethical duty“. When dealing here with a misconduct case, I had the impression that many colleagues as well as some other editors think of

Genetics, Philosophy

To be honest

12.04.2008 admin 1 Comment

Bruce Alberts, the new editor-in-chief of Science magazine, has in his March, 21 editorial a nice comment that I would like to highlight here Scientists share a common way of reaching conclusions that is based not only on the evidence and logic, but also requires honesty, creativity, and openess to new ideas. Struggling in an … Continue reading To be honest →

Theology

The Lucifer effect

27.09.2007 admin

I am currently reading “The Lucifer effect” by Philipp Zimbardo. Having seen many terrible things like a woman killed by more than 30 stabs with knife I know that theodicy is the main problem in theology – when the bad “situational power triumphs over individual power”. Zimbardo examines the process of transformation when good or … Continue reading The Lucifer effect →

Philosophy

6 sigma (TM)

31.12.2006 admin

No, this is not a post about another case of scientific misconduct (the sigma factor in transcription initiation published in Cell last October) but about Six Sigma, a process developed at Motorola in 1986 for measuring defects and improving quality of the production process (Motorola owns the trademark for Six Sigma). Read more at the … Continue reading 6 sigma (TM) →

Philosophy

Prevention of fraud

4.12.2006 admin

Donald Kennedy is writing in this week’ Science editorial about Responding to Fraud. The editorial is even more about prevention of fraud: The external reviewers ask for future risk assessment of potential fraud. Science will think in the future … which papers deserve particularly careful editorial scrutiny. Papers that are of substantial public interest, present … Continue reading Prevention of fraud →