4,179 research outputs found
Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co-authors' Careers
Over the last few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked
the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also
increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific
misconduct accounts for approximately more than half of those retractions. It
is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their
colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical
evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors'
research careers. Using data from the Web of Science (WOS), we measured the
productivity, impact and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted
articles for a period of five years before and after the retraction. We found
clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues'
misconduct, and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a
retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these
consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted
paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors,
while the impact is less important for middle authors.Comment: Accepted for publication in the Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technolog
Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?
A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation
as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this
commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the
mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three
decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence
intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be
corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications
that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal
procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive
certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate
procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table
Women's representation as authors of retracted papers in the biomedical sciences
Women are under-represented among authors of scientific papers. Although the number of retractions has been rising over the past few decades, gender differences among authors of retracted papers remain poorly understood. Therefore, this study investigated gender differences in authorship of retracted papers in biomedical sciences available on Retraction- Watch. Among 35,635 biomedical articles retracted between 1970 and 2022, including 20,849 first authors and 20,413 last authors, women accounted for 27.4% [26.8 to 28.0] of first authors and 23.5% [22.9 to 24.1] of last authors. The lowest representation of women was found for fraud (18.9% [17.1 to 20.9] for first authors and 13.5% [11.9 to 15.1] for last authors) and misconduct (19.5% [17.3 to 21.9] for first authors and 17.8% [15.7 to 20.3] for last authors). Women's representation was the highest for issues related to editors and publishers (35.1% [32.2 to 38.0] for first authors and 24.8% [22.9 to 26.8] for last authors) and errors (29.5% [28.0 to 31.0] for first authors and 22.1% [20.7 to 23.4] for last authors). Most retractions (60.9%) had men as first and last authors. Gender equality could improve research integrity in biomedical sciences
Demarcating misconduct from misinterpretations and mistakes
Within recent years, scientific misconduct has become an increasingly important topic, not only in the scientific community, but in the general public as well. Spectacular cases have been extensively covered in the news media, such as the cases of the Korean stem cell researcher Hwang, the German nanoscientist Schön, or the Norwegian cancer researcher Sudbø. In Science's latest annual "breakthrough of the year" report from December 2006, the descriptions of the year's hottest breakthroughs were accompanied by a similar description of "the breakdown of the year: scientific fraud". Official guidelines for dealing with scientific misconduct were introduced in the 1990s. At this time, research agencies, universities and other research institutions around the world developed guidelines for good scientific practice and formed committees to handle cases of scientific misconduct. In this process it was widely debated how to define scientific misconduct. Most definitions centered on falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (the so-called FFP definition), but suggestions were also made for definitions that were broader and more open-ended, such as the 1995 suggestion from the US Commission of Research Integrity to replace FFP with misappropriation, interference and misrepresentation (the so-called MIM definition). The MIM definition was not adopted in the US, but MIM-like definitions have been adopted in several other countries. In this paper, I shall describe these MIM-related definitions of scientific misconduct and analyze the arguments that have been advanced in their favor. I shall discuss some of the difficulties inherent in the MIM-related definitions, such as the distinction between misrepresentation and mistake, and the demarcation of misrepresentation in areas characterized by uncertainty or by diverging research paradigms. I shall illustrate the problems inherent in the MIM-definition through a particular case: the ruling of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) about Bjørn Lomborg's best-selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist in which he argued that contrary to what was claimed in the “litany” of the environmentalists, the state of the environment is getting better rather than worse. Lomborg was reported to the DCSD by several environmental scientists, and this controversial case from 2003 ended with a verdict that characterized Lomborg’s conclusions as misrepresentations, but acquitted Lomborg of misconduct due to his ignorance. I shall analyze this verdict and the problems it reveals with respect to the MIM-related definitions of misconduct
Research Subpoenas and the Sociology of Knowledge
Jasanoff says that the most effective way to integrate scientific knowledge fully and fairly into legal decisionmaking may be for judges to develop a keener sense of how science works
Federal Technology Transfer: Should We Build Subarus in Bethesda
A critical examination of a policy designed to encourage commercial exploitation of federally funded biomedical research. The author argues that the implementation of this policy threatens the integrity of basic science in America
Recommended from our members
Generic Ethics Principles in Social Science Research
The written output of a series of three symposia held in the spring of 2013 on the topic of Generic Ethics Principles in Social Science Research. The format for each symposium was the same: a main speaker introduced a paper that had been circulated in advance and this was followed by two formal discussants and then participation from the floor. Discussion in groups took place in the afternoon and there was then a brief plenary session. The stimulus paper from each event is reproduced in this publication along with papers from discussants and a summary of each discussion
- …