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 the value of knowledge creation.
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 a new Nature editorial “What Universities could learn from one of the biggest science’s fraud”
university investigations into research misconduct are often inadequate, opaque and poorly conducted. They challenge the idea that institutions can police themselves on research integrity and propose that there should be independent organizations to evaluate allegations of research fraud should.
Too many research-misconduct investigations turn out to be inadequate or flawed, says Gunsalus, who had a hand in creating a 26-point checklist that university officials can use to guide probes into research misconduct, which Grey’s team used to rate the investigations.
The 2018 JAMA links to the checklist while the rights seems to be with the National Center for Professional & Research Ethics that has many more resources.
Another series of faked studies are reported by washingtonpost
“Many of Stapel’s students graduated without having ever run an experiment, the report says. Stapel told them that their time was better spent analyzing data and writing. The commission writes that Stapel was ’lord of the data’ in his collaborations. It says colleagues or students who asked to see raw data were given excuses or even threatened and insulted.”
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 Continue reading Accurate reporting
Given my interest in strange phenomena leading to science misperception I wonder why I didn’t find this site earlier as it tells you also everything about Déjà Vu, Déjà Vécu, Déjà Visité, L’esprit de l’Escalier (comeback when it is too late), Capgras delusion (replaced friend), Fregoli delusion (same person appears in different bodies) and prosopagnosia (unable to recognize faces also known as myopia…). Yea, yea.
Here is a rare occasion where you can identify “guests” and “ghosts” in a paper – a common practice. Continue reading Of guests and ghosts
The Lancet (10 June 2006, p 1882) had one of the best descriptions of scientific misconduct that I have ever seen (yes, I am also admiring Geoffrey Rose). The authors argue that our current view of misconduction is wrong those caught for fraud being a few “bad apples”. Instead we are facing a continuum ranging from honest and inevitable errors to outright fraud. I agree up to here, however, I do not believe so much in a “slippery slope” – in my experience the intentional selection of certain entry and exit levels is more common.
Here is my expansion of the original N-S-C diagram: