Reporting misconduct

When? Who? In our limited sample, professors reported a witnessed case of alleged misconduct more often (67% reported vs 29% not reported) than other members of academia … we found that researchers in permanent positions report incidences of suspected misconduct twice as often as those in temporary positions… here was little difference between men and … Continue reading Reporting misconduct

Scientific misconduct deserves more attention and better research committees

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

How frequent is scientific misconduct?

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%

Can a research school replace the former role model of a professor?

Nature yesterday about cheating students and misconduct Institutions need to stop treating education as a product and refrain from determining the value of research by the amount of funding received or the number of papers produced. Instead, they should focus on building academic cultures that are committed to integrity and that place abiding faith in … Continue reading Can a research school replace the former role model of a professor?

Non-fake journals can be recognized

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

Wissenschaft in der Filterblase?

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?

Value replicability not journal impact

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).

The true reason for retractions?

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?