Reblogged from Talesfromthelou’s Blog:
Two Thirds of Scientific Publications Retracted Are Fraudulent.
Written by Andrew Puhanic
Click on images to enlarge
AN astonishing two-thirds of all biomedical and life-science research publications and research articles that have been retracted from the public domain have been retracted because of fraud.
An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
SoundEagle🦅 says: The shotgun principle “Publish or Perish” has not done the world of research and publication much good if these alarming and damning statistics about fraudulent scientific research and publications were true, not to mention that university education, teaching and research nowadays can be and are often vocationalized, shortsighted, narrowly focused and co-opted by economic, commercial, corporate and/or political interests.
According to the post entitled Misconduct Widespread in Retracted Science Papers, Study Finds published at The New York Times:
Dr. Casadevall and another author, Dr. Ferric C. Fang of the University of Washington, have been outspoken critics of the current culture of science. To them, the rising rate of retractions reflects perverse incentives that drive scientists to make sloppy mistakes or even knowingly publish false data…. While the fraudulent papers may be relatively few, he went on, their rapid increase is a sign of a winner-take-all culture in which getting a paper published in a major journal can be the difference between heading a lab and facing unemployment. “Some fraction of people are starting to cheat,” [Dr Casadevall] said.
Notice that “Improved training in logic, probability and statistics” and “Enhanced focus on ethics” are two of the presented solutions. Philosophers and ethicists could find themselves working with educators, policy makers, regulators, reviewers, evaluators, scientists, researchers and even meta-researchers to reduce incidents of scientific frauds and to identify the underlying causes.
7 thoughts on “The multitasking scientist”
Related Websites and Articles 📰
- The Quotation Fallacy “💬”
- 🦅 Transparent SoundEagle Explaining Dubious Accountability ⚖
- Retraction Watch (retractionwatch.wordpress.com)
- Embargo Watch (embargowatch.wordpress.com)
- Science publishing: The trouble with retractions (nature.com)
- An Alarming Two Thirds of All Scientific Publications and Research Retracted Found to Be Fraudulent (theglobalistreport.com)
- Misconduct Widespread in Retracted Science Papers, Study Finds (nytimes.com)
- A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform (nytimes.com)
- Fraud and Science (psychologytoday.com)
- Fraud and Science Comments (psychologytoday.com)
- Striking Back Against Censorship (en.blog.wordpress.com)
- Academic fraud cited as journal retracts paper (radionz.co.nz)
- Retraction Watch: A Blog Worth Reading (depletedcranium.com)
- Why Do Scientists Cheat? (psmag.com)
- Scientists Cite Unread Papers (learnfunfacts.com)
- Time for the “Journal of Reproducible Research”? (dannagifford.wordpress.com)
- Why write a blog about retractions? (retractionwatch.com)
- My Interview with Ivan Oransky at #scio12 – The Transcript (field-notes.digitalgrip.de)
- Interactions: The Trailblazers and the Whistleblowers (altmetric.com)
- Grave Wave Doubts? (telescoper.wordpress.com)
- How to Read a Scientific Paper and Boost Productivity (For Non-Scientists) (ewensommerville.com)
Ooohh! This reminds me of the shotgun principle “Publish or Perish”. Let us ponder about the p value of your paper being accepted outright by “some less picky journal” without any revision(s) . . . . .
I am really starting to dislike this part of science already really… Without publications no PhD, no post-doc position, no grants… I’m starting to feel more like a salesman than a scientist every now and then…
I can’t agree with you more. Indeed, university education and teaching nowadays can be and are often vocationalized, shortsighted, narrowly focused and coopted by economic, commercial, corporate and/or political interests.
University research is also not always immune to these issues and problems.
Things are not going to get better anytime soon in the world of scientific research and publication. See for yourself at http://talesfromthelou.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/two-thirds-of-scientific-publications-retracted-are-fraudulent/. Please let me know what you think.
I have never understood why people would do this. I mean, you want to do research, find out how things work, not make up stories?! If so, you should’ve better become a children’s book author or so….
However, I am starting to appreciate the problems associated with the high publication pressure. My boss will have to deal with his lab reduced to 2 PhD students and 1 postdoc. All of his recent grant applications have been rejected. I am sure that if he had published more, he would have gotten money.
Same problem for me: I will be unemployed at the beginning of next year, because I cannot apply for good postdoc positions without first author publications. Likewise, I am ineligible for fellowships.
Still, I would not resort to making up data. I realize that I am spending tax’ payers money, or worse, money from people who donated to help cure cancer. I want to become an honest researcher, be of use to the society. This is not going to happen when making up things. Even tough I know the road there will be tough, especially because I will be fighting against things like this.
People have committed frauds for various reasons. We need to look at motifs, profits, risks, opportunities, threats, stakeholders, sponsors, institutions, politics, economics, research culture, personal ambitions, competitions, bureaucracy, commercial interests, research ethics, funding issues and so on. . . . .
For example, scientists working for mining, alcohol, cigarettes companies and in certain industries (military, defense, energy, pharmaceutical, pesticide and so on) will have various reasons to “cook” their data and interpret them in particular ways to suit their aims and purposes.