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AN astonishing two-thirds of all biomedical and life-science research publications and research articles that have been retracted from the public domain have been retracted because of fraud.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.
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”
- 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)
- 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)
- Embargo Watch (embargowatch.wordpress.com)