The reproducibility of biomedical research: sleepers awake!

There is increasing concern about the reliability of biomedical research, with recent articles suggesting that up to 85% of research funding is wasted. This article argues that an important reason for this is the inappropriate use of molecular techniques, particularly in the field of RNA biomarkers, coupled with a tendency to exaggerate the importance of research findings

Reproducibility crisis in science: causes and possible solutions

Part I. Claims to knowledge require justification. In science, such justification is made possible by the ability to reproduce or replicate experiments, thereby confirming their validity. Additionally, reproducibility serves as a self-correcting tool in science as it weeds out faulty experiments. It is therefore essential that experimental studies be replicated and confirmed. Recently, attempts to reproduce studies in several fields have failed, leading to what has been referred to as "a crisis of reproducibility." This crisis is largely a result of the current culture in the scientific world. Specifically, it is a result of a system that incentivizes individual success in the form of publications in high-impact journals over collaboration and careful conductance of research. This environment contributes to the crisis of reproducibility by increasing biases, incentivizing researchers to engage in manipulative statistics, decreasing quality control and transparency, and increasing the likelihood of researchers engaging in fraudulent behavior. Possible solutions to the problem of irreproducibility could tackle individual factors. A more prudent approach would be to focus on changing the current culture in the scientific world. Increased transparency had been suggested as a way to solve this problem. There is currently a movement advocating for increased transparency in science through "open science." Part II. Retraction of scientific papers due to evidence of research misconduct is on the rise, having increased tenfold from 2000 to 2009. Previous work on this topic focused on published retraction notices, using notices to identify the percent of retracted articles that were caused by research misconduct. This study utilized a different approach. Using the Office of Research Integrity database, we first identified publications that resulted from research misconduct. We then searched those articles to determine whether they were indeed retracted. Once retraction notices were identified, they were scored based on scoring elements reflecting guidelines for transparency. Lastly, we investigated whether a correlation exists between the quality of a retraction notice and journal impact factor. Our findings suggest that 21% of papers containing data derived from scientific misconduct are not retracted. Moreover, the quality of retraction notices varies, with some elements more likely to be present than others. No significant correlation between retraction notices and journal impact factor was found

A Social Controversy: Autism Spectrum Disorder\u27s Correlation to the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination

A 1998 research study lead by Dr. Andrew Wakefield linked the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination as a probable cause to autism spectrum disorder. This publication has started a significant debate among healthcare professionals and instigated an anti-vaccination movement within the general population. This vaccination controversy was started by parents who readily accepted Wakefield’s findings as truth and frequently would choose to withdrawal the administration of vaccinations from their children’s care plans. There has also been disapproval by healthcare professionals over Wakefield’s study since numerous research teams have been unable to replicate his findings. This disagreement surrounding the MMR vaccination is likely putting millions of people, mostly children, at risk of contracting horrific diseases. Brian Deer established the fraud in Wakefield’s original study and rejected Wakefield’s null hypothesis. Deer’s seven years of investigation affirmed the countless research studies that rejected Wakefield’s null hypothesis. Deer’s analysis of Dr. Wakefield’s study demonstrates how the public and the media can be blindly misled by scientific studies. When information has reached people’s grasp, it is hard to retract false information once it has permeated millions of households, which is what needs to be accomplished regarding the truth behind the relationship between the MMR vaccination and autism. The medical world could benefit from knowing the cause of this detrimental disorder, in an effort to treat patients better and possibly someday cure them

Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: a reassessment

The motivation for this Special Issue is increasing concern not only with academic misconduct but also with less easily defined forms of misrepresentation and gaming. In an era of intense emphasis on measuring academic performance, there has been a proliferation of scandals, questionable behaviors and devious stratagems involving not just individuals but also organizations, including universities, editors and reviewers, journal publishers, and conference organizers. This introduction first reviews the literature on the prevalence of academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming (MMG). The core of the article is organized around a life-cycle model of the production and dissemination of research results. We synthesize the findings in the MMG literature at the level of the investigator or research team, emphasizing that misbehavior extends well beyond fabrication and falsification to include behaviors designed to exaggerate or to mislead readers as to the significance of research findings. MMG is next explored in the post-research review, publication, and post-publication realms. Moving from the individual researcher to the organizational level, we examine how MMG can be engaged in by either journals or organizations employing or funding the researchers. The changing institutional environment including the growth of research assessment exercises, increased quantitative output measurement and greater pressure to publish may all encourage MMG. In the final section, we summarize the main conclusions and offer suggestions both on how we might best address the problems and on topics for future research