We Need to Talk about Systematic Fraud. Byrne, J. Nature, 566(7742):9, February, 2019. doi abstract bibtex Software that uncovers suspicious papers will do little for a community that does not confront organized research fraud, says Jennifer Byrne. [Excerpt] [...] Just as there is growing alarm about our rising, polluted oceans, scientists are increasingly talking about the swelling research literature and its contamination by incorrect research results. [] Most of the talk centres on unconscious bias and ill-informed sloppiness; conversations about intentional deception are more difficult. Unlike most faulty research practices, fraud actively evades detection. It is also overlooked because the scientific community has been unwilling to have frank and open discussions about it. [...] Why is there such enthusiasm for talking about faulty research practices, yet such reluctance to discuss deliberate deception? [...] Fraud departs from community norms, so scientists do not want to think about it, let alone talk about it. It is even more uncomfortable to think about organized fraud that is so frequently associated with one country. This becomes a vicious cycle: because fraud is not discussed, people don't learn about it, so they don't consider it, or they think it's so rare that it's unlikely to affect them, and so papers are less likely to come under scrutiny. [...] Institutions need to implement faculty evaluations that are alert to fraudulently produced papers, with systems to discipline those found guilty of serious misconduct. Journals also need to devote more resources to monitoring the literature that they help to produce, and to purging it of faked science. They must respond to reported errors and be quick to investigate. They should encourage peer reviewers to be alert to the possibility of fraud and to describe reasonable suspicions. [...]
@article{byrneWeNeedTalk2019,
title = {We Need to Talk about Systematic Fraud},
author = {Byrne, Jennifer},
year = {2019},
month = feb,
volume = {566},
pages = {9},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/d41586-019-00439-9},
abstract = {Software that uncovers suspicious papers will do little for a community that does not confront organized research fraud, says Jennifer Byrne.
[Excerpt] [...] Just as there is growing alarm about our rising, polluted oceans, scientists are increasingly talking about the swelling research literature and its contamination by incorrect research results.
[] Most of the talk centres on unconscious bias and ill-informed sloppiness; conversations about intentional deception are more difficult. Unlike most faulty research practices, fraud actively evades detection. It is also overlooked because the scientific community has been unwilling to have frank and open discussions about it. [...] Why is there such enthusiasm for talking about faulty research practices, yet such reluctance to discuss deliberate deception? [...] Fraud departs from community norms, so scientists do not want to think about it, let alone talk about it. It is even more uncomfortable to think about organized fraud that is so frequently associated with one country. This becomes a vicious cycle: because fraud is not discussed, people don't learn about it, so they don't consider it, or they think it's so rare that it's unlikely to affect them, and so papers are less likely to come under scrutiny. [...] Institutions need to implement faculty evaluations that are alert to fraudulently produced papers, with systems to discipline those found guilty of serious misconduct. Journals also need to devote more resources to monitoring the literature that they help to produce, and to purging it of faked science. They must respond to reported errors and be quick to investigate. They should encourage peer reviewers to be alert to the possibility of fraud and to describe reasonable suspicions. [...]},
journal = {Nature},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14686244,authorship,peer-review,post-publication-peer-review,publication-bias,publish-or-perish,research-management,science-ethics,science-literacy,scientific-community-self-correction,scientific-misconduct},
lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-14686244},
number = {7742}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"YPSnuECYsnh9LquxD","bibbaseid":"byrne-weneedtotalkaboutsystematicfraud-2019","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Byrne, J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"We Need to Talk about Systematic Fraud","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Byrne"],"firstnames":["Jennifer"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2019","month":"February","volume":"566","pages":"9","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/d41586-019-00439-9","abstract":"Software that uncovers suspicious papers will do little for a community that does not confront organized research fraud, says Jennifer Byrne. [Excerpt] [...] Just as there is growing alarm about our rising, polluted oceans, scientists are increasingly talking about the swelling research literature and its contamination by incorrect research results. [] Most of the talk centres on unconscious bias and ill-informed sloppiness; conversations about intentional deception are more difficult. Unlike most faulty research practices, fraud actively evades detection. It is also overlooked because the scientific community has been unwilling to have frank and open discussions about it. [...] Why is there such enthusiasm for talking about faulty research practices, yet such reluctance to discuss deliberate deception? [...] Fraud departs from community norms, so scientists do not want to think about it, let alone talk about it. It is even more uncomfortable to think about organized fraud that is so frequently associated with one country. This becomes a vicious cycle: because fraud is not discussed, people don't learn about it, so they don't consider it, or they think it's so rare that it's unlikely to affect them, and so papers are less likely to come under scrutiny. [...] Institutions need to implement faculty evaluations that are alert to fraudulently produced papers, with systems to discipline those found guilty of serious misconduct. Journals also need to devote more resources to monitoring the literature that they help to produce, and to purging it of faked science. They must respond to reported errors and be quick to investigate. They should encourage peer reviewers to be alert to the possibility of fraud and to describe reasonable suspicions. [...]","journal":"Nature","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14686244,authorship,peer-review,post-publication-peer-review,publication-bias,publish-or-perish,research-management,science-ethics,science-literacy,scientific-community-self-correction,scientific-misconduct","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-14686244","number":"7742","bibtex":"@article{byrneWeNeedTalk2019,\n title = {We Need to Talk about Systematic Fraud},\n author = {Byrne, Jennifer},\n year = {2019},\n month = feb,\n volume = {566},\n pages = {9},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/d41586-019-00439-9},\n abstract = {Software that uncovers suspicious papers will do little for a community that does not confront organized research fraud, says Jennifer Byrne.\n\n[Excerpt] [...] Just as there is growing alarm about our rising, polluted oceans, scientists are increasingly talking about the swelling research literature and its contamination by incorrect research results.\n\n[] Most of the talk centres on unconscious bias and ill-informed sloppiness; conversations about intentional deception are more difficult. Unlike most faulty research practices, fraud actively evades detection. It is also overlooked because the scientific community has been unwilling to have frank and open discussions about it. [...] Why is there such enthusiasm for talking about faulty research practices, yet such reluctance to discuss deliberate deception? [...] Fraud departs from community norms, so scientists do not want to think about it, let alone talk about it. It is even more uncomfortable to think about organized fraud that is so frequently associated with one country. This becomes a vicious cycle: because fraud is not discussed, people don't learn about it, so they don't consider it, or they think it's so rare that it's unlikely to affect them, and so papers are less likely to come under scrutiny. [...] Institutions need to implement faculty evaluations that are alert to fraudulently produced papers, with systems to discipline those found guilty of serious misconduct. Journals also need to devote more resources to monitoring the literature that they help to produce, and to purging it of faked science. They must respond to reported errors and be quick to investigate. They should encourage peer reviewers to be alert to the possibility of fraud and to describe reasonable suspicions. [...]},\n journal = {Nature},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14686244,authorship,peer-review,post-publication-peer-review,publication-bias,publish-or-perish,research-management,science-ethics,science-literacy,scientific-community-self-correction,scientific-misconduct},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-14686244},\n number = {7742}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Byrne, J."],"key":"byrneWeNeedTalk2019","id":"byrneWeNeedTalk2019","bibbaseid":"byrne-weneedtotalkaboutsystematicfraud-2019","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14686244","authorship","peer-review","post-publication-peer-review","publication-bias","publish-or-perish","research-management","science-ethics","science-literacy","scientific-community-self-correction","scientific-misconduct"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","creationDate":"2020-07-03T22:46:16.636Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14686244","authorship","peer-review","post-publication-peer-review","publication-bias","publish-or-perish","research-management","science-ethics","science-literacy","scientific-community-self-correction","scientific-misconduct"],"search_terms":["need","talk","systematic","fraud","byrne"],"title":"We Need to Talk about Systematic Fraud","year":2019,"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}