Research Integrity: Don't Let Transparency Damage Science. Lewandowsky, S. & Bishop, D. 529(7587):459–461. ![Research Integrity: Don't Let Transparency Damage Science [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science. [Excerpt] Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible1, the scientific community has launched initiatives to increase data sharing, transparency and open critique. As with any new development, there are unintended consequences. Many measures that can improve science2 – shared data, post-publication peer review and public engagement on social media – can be turned against scientists. [\n] Endless information requests, complaints to researchers' universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of violence: these were all recurring experiences shared by researchers from a broad range of disciplines at a Royal Society-sponsored meeting last year that we organized to explore this topic. Orchestrated and well-funded harassment campaigns against researchers working in climate change and tobacco control are well documented3, 4. Some hard-line opponents to other research, such as that on nuclear fallout, vaccination, chronic fatigue syndrome or genetically modified organisms, although less resourced, have employed identical strategies. [\n] [...] [Use and abuse] 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. [\n] [...] [\n] We also examine five legitimate tools of scholarly exchange, how they can be 'weaponized' and how to protect openness while curtailing its abuse. [\n] [...] [Next steps] Numerous professional bodies, educational institutions, government agencies and journals have convened meetings during the past few years to put science under the microscope. Issues such as reproducibility and conflicts of interest have legitimately attracted much scrutiny and have stimulated corrective action. As a result, the field is being invigorated by initiatives such as study pre-registration and open data. [\n] Similar attention must be devoted to stressors and threats to science that arise in response to research that is considered inconvenient. The same institutions and bodies that have scrutinized science must also start a conversation about how to protect it.
@article{lewandowskyResearchIntegrityDon2016,
title = {Research Integrity: Don't Let Transparency Damage Science},
author = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Bishop, Dorothy},
date = {2016-01},
journaltitle = {Nature},
volume = {529},
pages = {459--461},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/529459a},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/529459a},
abstract = {Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science.
[Excerpt] Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible1, the scientific community has launched initiatives to increase data sharing, transparency and open critique. As with any new development, there are unintended consequences. Many measures that can improve science2 -- shared data, post-publication peer review and public engagement on social media -- can be turned against scientists.
[\textbackslash n] Endless information requests, complaints to researchers' universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of violence: these were all recurring experiences shared by researchers from a broad range of disciplines at a Royal Society-sponsored meeting last year that we organized to explore this topic. Orchestrated and well-funded harassment campaigns against researchers working in climate change and tobacco control are well documented3, 4. Some hard-line opponents to other research, such as that on nuclear fallout, vaccination, chronic fatigue syndrome or genetically modified organisms, although less resourced, have employed identical strategies.
[\textbackslash n] [...] [Use and abuse]
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.
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[\textbackslash n] We also examine five legitimate tools of scholarly exchange, how they can be 'weaponized' and how to protect openness while curtailing its abuse.
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[Next steps] Numerous professional bodies, educational institutions, government agencies and journals have convened meetings during the past few years to put science under the microscope. Issues such as reproducibility and conflicts of interest have legitimately attracted much scrutiny and have stimulated corrective action. As a result, the field is being invigorated by initiatives such as study pre-registration and open data.
[\textbackslash n] Similar attention must be devoted to stressors and threats to science that arise in response to research that is considered inconvenient. The same institutions and bodies that have scrutinized science must also start a conversation about how to protect it.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13920437,~to-add-doi-URL,open-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,technology-mediated-communication,transparency},
number = {7587}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"WtEerEkuD8PPRBaAB","bibbaseid":"lewandowsky-bishop-researchintegritydontlettransparencydamagescience","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Lewandowsky, S.","Bishop, D."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Research Integrity: Don't Let Transparency Damage Science","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lewandowsky"],"firstnames":["Stephan"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bishop"],"firstnames":["Dorothy"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2016-01","journaltitle":"Nature","volume":"529","pages":"459–461","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/529459a","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/529459a","abstract":"Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science. [Excerpt] Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible1, the scientific community has launched initiatives to increase data sharing, transparency and open critique. As with any new development, there are unintended consequences. Many measures that can improve science2 – shared data, post-publication peer review and public engagement on social media – can be turned against scientists. [\\n] Endless information requests, complaints to researchers' universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of violence: these were all recurring experiences shared by researchers from a broad range of disciplines at a Royal Society-sponsored meeting last year that we organized to explore this topic. Orchestrated and well-funded harassment campaigns against researchers working in climate change and tobacco control are well documented3, 4. Some hard-line opponents to other research, such as that on nuclear fallout, vaccination, chronic fatigue syndrome or genetically modified organisms, although less resourced, have employed identical strategies. [\\n] [...] [Use and abuse] 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. [\\n] [...] [\\n] We also examine five legitimate tools of scholarly exchange, how they can be 'weaponized' and how to protect openness while curtailing its abuse. [\\n] [...] [Next steps] Numerous professional bodies, educational institutions, government agencies and journals have convened meetings during the past few years to put science under the microscope. Issues such as reproducibility and conflicts of interest have legitimately attracted much scrutiny and have stimulated corrective action. As a result, the field is being invigorated by initiatives such as study pre-registration and open data. [\\n] Similar attention must be devoted to stressors and threats to science that arise in response to research that is considered inconvenient. The same institutions and bodies that have scrutinized science must also start a conversation about how to protect it.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13920437,~to-add-doi-URL,open-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,technology-mediated-communication,transparency","number":"7587","bibtex":"@article{lewandowskyResearchIntegrityDon2016,\n title = {Research Integrity: Don't Let Transparency Damage Science},\n author = {Lewandowsky, Stephan and Bishop, Dorothy},\n date = {2016-01},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n volume = {529},\n pages = {459--461},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/529459a},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/529459a},\n abstract = {Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science.\n\n[Excerpt] Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible1, the scientific community has launched initiatives to increase data sharing, transparency and open critique. As with any new development, there are unintended consequences. Many measures that can improve science2 -- shared data, post-publication peer review and public engagement on social media -- can be turned against scientists.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Endless information requests, complaints to researchers' universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of violence: these were all recurring experiences shared by researchers from a broad range of disciplines at a Royal Society-sponsored meeting last year that we organized to explore this topic. Orchestrated and well-funded harassment campaigns against researchers working in climate change and tobacco control are well documented3, 4. Some hard-line opponents to other research, such as that on nuclear fallout, vaccination, chronic fatigue syndrome or genetically modified organisms, although less resourced, have employed identical strategies.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...] [Use and abuse]\n\nWe 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.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] We also examine five legitimate tools of scholarly exchange, how they can be 'weaponized' and how to protect openness while curtailing its abuse.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[Next steps] Numerous professional bodies, educational institutions, government agencies and journals have convened meetings during the past few years to put science under the microscope. Issues such as reproducibility and conflicts of interest have legitimately attracted much scrutiny and have stimulated corrective action. As a result, the field is being invigorated by initiatives such as study pre-registration and open data.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Similar attention must be devoted to stressors and threats to science that arise in response to research that is considered inconvenient. The same institutions and bodies that have scrutinized science must also start a conversation about how to protect it.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13920437,~to-add-doi-URL,open-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,technology-mediated-communication,transparency},\n number = {7587}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Lewandowsky, S.","Bishop, D."],"key":"lewandowskyResearchIntegrityDon2016","id":"lewandowskyResearchIntegrityDon2016","bibbaseid":"lewandowsky-bishop-researchintegritydontlettransparencydamagescience","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1038/529459a"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13920437","~to-add-doi-URL","open-science","science-ethics","science-policy-interface","science-society-interface","scientific-communication","technology-mediated-communication","transparency"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:12.451Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13920437","~to-add-doi-url","open-science","science-ethics","science-policy-interface","science-society-interface","scientific-communication","technology-mediated-communication","transparency"],"search_terms":["research","integrity","don","transparency","damage","science","lewandowsky","bishop"],"title":"Research Integrity: Don't Let Transparency Damage Science","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}