Research integrity: Don't let transparency damage science
January 25, 2016 5:58 AM   Subscribe

We have identified ten red-flag areas that can help to differentiate healthy debate, problematic research practices and campaigns that masquerade as scientific inquiry. None by itself is conclusive, but a preponderance of troubling signs can help to steer the responses of scientists and their institutions to criticism.
posted by infini (13 comments total) 20 users marked this as a favorite
 
Well all I can say is Dr A is in big trouble.
posted by sammyo at 6:10 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


I know this is specifically focused on scientific engagement with the public, but it's a great primer on how to handle every internet conversation ever:
Scientists should ignore critics who are abusive or illogical and those that make the same points repeatedly despite rebuttals. Internet trolling has been associated with sadism and psychopathy... The drawbacks of anonymity (its encouragement of bad behaviour) outweigh its advantages (for example, it allows junior people to criticize senior academics without fear of redress). What's more, the scientific community should not indulge in games of 'gotcha' (intentionally turning small errors against a person). Minor corrections and clarifications after publication should not be a reason to stigmatize fellow researchers.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:30 AM on January 25, 2016 [8 favorites]


All who participate in post-publication review should identify themselves. The drawbacks of anonymity (its encouragement of bad behaviour) outweigh its advantages (for example, it allows junior people to criticize senior academics without fear of redress).

I don't agree with this. As long as you aren't being abusive, what is the problem of using an alias to post comments about a piece of work? There are plenty of people who are abusive even with their "real name" attached to the abuse.

There is also a distinction between establishing a pseudonym, which a lot of scientific bloggers do, and publishing anonymously with no relation to any other commentary or piece of work.
posted by demiurge at 6:57 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


i doubt they care much about the difference between a persistent, consistent pseudonym and a "real" identity. the arguments are against "short term" anonymous identities.
posted by andrewcooke at 7:10 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Protective action. We strongly support open data. . . . When researchers cannot share data, they should explain why.

Also openness about what what other data were also collected but excluded.
posted by Sir Rinse at 7:13 AM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


In general, critics and original researchers should obey symmetrical standards of openness and responsibility and be subject to symmetrical scrutiny concerning conflicts of interest.

That right there would blow most climate contrarians and other science-hostile antagonists out of the water.
posted by Weftage at 8:10 AM on January 25, 2016


It'd be great if media outlets were required to post this table and populate it with well-researched answers before wading into a dispute. It'd save everyone a lot of time.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


yes, I like this. I do hope that more work is done in this area.
posted by rebent at 9:02 AM on January 25, 2016


The NEJM is taking a lot of heat for the following piece on data sharing:

A second concern held by some is that a new class of research person will emerge — people who had nothing to do with the design and execution of the study but use another group’s data for their own ends, possibly stealing from the research productivity planned by the data gatherers, or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited. There is concern among some front-line researchers that the system will be taken over by what some researchers have characterized as “research parasites.”

In response, a research parasite has emerged from the Twittosphere to ask for your data.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:09 AM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]




Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate

Principal Findings

We examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression.

posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:46 AM on January 25, 2016


Data aren't cards in a research poker game: held close to one's vest, bluffing allowed.
posted by Sir Rinse at 12:42 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


But some data is probably vastly more valuable than an inside straight at the last had of the world series of poker, oh say a data supporting the effectiveness of a new anti-alzheimer drug. Get your lab subsidized, a bunch of patents worth many millions, the hushed comments at the faculty luncheon.
posted by sammyo at 2:13 PM on January 25, 2016


« Older An elegant weapon for a more civilized age   |   "You have to respect the absurdity of it," Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments