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 … Reporting misconduct weiterlesen
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 … Scientific misconduct deserves more attention and better research committees weiterlesen
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%
For my upcoming talk next month in Milano I have updated my 2006 diagram schema, including the following items
A new piece in the Journal of Academic Ethics raises the important question if and why the earlier “bad apple” explanation of scientific misconduct has been largely abandoned by referencing to ‘institutional failure’ (bad barrels), and ‘structural crisis (bad system). Dutch scientists in 2011 explained Diederik Stapel’s grand-scale data fabrication largely in systemic terms, whereas … Bad apple or bad system? weiterlesen
With the current hype around prize winners, we may not forget about the much larger number of scientists who have been never honored or even lost their live for doing good science. The Nobel Prize violates a central paradigm of science that false opinions are always corrected, see also the summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies. So this … The Nobel Prize violates a central paradigm of science weiterlesen
It is my impression that most of the scientific misconduct cases are not the result of intentional fraud (with some exceptions) but self deception, poor education, indifferent handling of facts and wrong rewards. Dorothy Bishop thinks that the role of cognitive biases in sustaining bad science is underestimated. I shall argue, however, that to improve … About the psychology of scientists weiterlesen
Gemma Conroy about a new study by Satalkar and Shaw More training and clear guidelines are favoured as fixes for bad research practices, but a new study suggests that these efforts are wasted if researchers are inherently dishonest. The study published in BMC Medical Ethics revealed that childhood education and personality traits have a greater … inherently dishonest people weiterlesen
Nature is citing an in-depth analysis of policy documents in research integrity in Sci Eng Ethics which used co-word analysis. The result? There seems to be no joint language so far ‘integrity’ has a strong connection to ‘policy’ and ‘institution’ in the British, Dutch and Norwegian documents. However, it is has strong connection to ‘society’ … Act locally, think globally weiterlesen
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 … Can a research school replace the former role model of a professor? weiterlesen
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 … Non-fake journals can be recognized weiterlesen
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 … Wissenschaft in der Filterblase? weiterlesen
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 … Irreproducibility, once more weiterlesen
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).
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 … The true reason for retractions? weiterlesen