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
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
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
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?
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
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 … Continue reading The true reason for retractions?
A recent article in Nature Medicine finds that the price of misconduct probes can surpass $500,000. Sure, that may be expensive
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
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
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