2 Comments

Two Thirds of Scientific Publications Retracted Are Fraudulent ๐Ÿ“ฐ๐Ÿ•ต


Reblogged from Talesfromthelou’s Blog:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

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AN astonishing two-thirds of all biomedical and life-science research publications and research articles that have been retracted from the public domain have been retracted because of fraud.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 Statesย 

Read moreโ€ฆ 423 more words

Click here to contact SoundEagleSoundEagle says: The shotgun principle โ€œPublish or Perishโ€ 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.

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 โ€œThe multitaskingย scientistโ€

  • Ooohh! This reminds me of the shotgun principle โ€œPublish or Perishโ€. Let us ponder about the p value of your paper being accepted outright by โ€œsome less picky journalโ€ without any revision(s) . . . . .

    • I am really starting to dislike this part of science already reallyโ€ฆ Without publications no PhD, no post-doc position, no grantsโ€ฆ Iโ€™m starting to feel more like a salesman than a scientist every now and thenโ€ฆ

      • I canโ€™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 shouldโ€™ve better become a childrenโ€™s book author or soโ€ฆ.

        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 taxโ€™ 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 โ€œcookโ€ their data and interpret them in particular ways to suit their aims and purposes.

2 comments on “Two Thirds of Scientific Publications Retracted Are Fraudulent ๐Ÿ“ฐ๐Ÿ•ต

  1. SoundEagle has included in this post my pertinent discussion with a research scientist and PhD candidate whose blog is named trockeneisbombe.

    Like

  2. […] Two Thirds of Scientific Publications Retracted Are Fraudulent […]

    Like

โ„ โ… โ† Leave some thoughts or comments:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: