scholarly journals Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth by Stuart Ritchie

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 422-432
Author(s):  
Henry Bauer

This book does a splendid job of describing and documenting the dysfunctional features of contemporary science mentioned in the book’s subtitle. Were I still teaching, I would have my students read this book as the basis for many productive class discussions. The margins of my copy overflow with notes, comments, and cues for further reading. The 80 pages of endnotes, for some 260 pages of text, are the best and most interesting documentation that I can recall ever finding in such a book. At any rate, I recommend this book wholeheartedly; I doubt that anyone interested in the nature of contemporary science will fail to be informed and to find stimulation for further thought and reading. The Preface already promises that this will be a page-turner. Many will be astonished and disheartened by the fully documented cases of outwardly distinguished academics whose work was largely or completely fraudulent, as with Diederik Stapel (pp. 4–5 and later). Ritchie quite appropriately sees replication as the essence of science (p. 5): “If it won’t replicate, then it’s hard to describe what you’ve done as scientific at all.” Note that this is an empirical statement, not the Popperian criterion that theories must be falsifiable in principle if they are to be regarded as scientific. If a claimed observable phenomenon cannot be repeated, then we cannot know that it was real, that it happened even once, when first claimed. That’s the continuing dilemma for parapsychology, cryptozoology, for anomalistics in general. Ritchie points out that the scientific community failed to handle appropriately the issue of replication in the case of Stapel, and also with Daryl Bem’s claimed evidence of precognition. Overall, peer review and journal publication practices have not saved science from “a dizzying array of incompetence, delusion, lies, and self-deception” (p. 7).

eLife ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald D Vale ◽  
Anthony A Hyman

The job of a scientist is to make a discovery and then communicate this new knowledge to others. For a scientist to be successful, he or she needs to be able to claim credit or priority for discoveries throughout their career. However, despite being fundamental to the reward system of science, the principles for establishing the "priority of discovery" are rarely discussed. Here we break down priority into two steps: disclosure, in which the discovery is released to the world-wide community; and validation, in which other scientists assess the accuracy, quality and importance of the work. Currently, in biology, disclosure and an initial validation are combined in a journal publication. Here, we discuss the advantages of separating these steps into disclosure via a preprint, and validation via a combination of peer review at a journal and additional evaluation by the wider scientific community.


Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.


2013 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 15-16
Author(s):  
Jean Tran Thanh Van

Almost 20 years ago, the Association "Rencontres du Vietnam" embarked on an unprecedented venture in the scientific community. Via a closely-knit and worldwide network of active scientists, the Association has organized high level international conferences in Vietnam, these conferences constitute a forum in which scientists from the developed and emerging nations can meet, present their work and discuss problems of mutual interest. These conferences have attracted not only leading scientists, including Nobel laureates from the developed world but also young Asian students, who can thereby benefit from contact with the creators of contemporary science.


F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie L. Iwema ◽  
John LaDue ◽  
Angela Zack ◽  
Ansuman Chattopadhyay

The time it takes for a completed manuscript to be published traditionally can be extremely lengthy. Article publication delay, which occurs in part due to constraints associated with peer review, can prevent the timely dissemination of critical and actionable data associated with new information on rare diseases or developing health concerns such as Zika virus. Preprint servers are open access online repositories housing preprint research articles that enable authors (1) to make their research immediately and freely available and (2) to receive commentary and peer review prior to journal submission. There is a growing movement of preprint advocates aiming to change the current journal publication and peer review system, proposing that preprints catalyze biomedical discovery, support career advancement, and improve scientific communication. While the number of articles submitted to and hosted by preprint servers are gradually increasing, there has been no simple way to identify biomedical research published in a preprint format, as they are not typically indexed and are only discoverable by directly searching the specific preprint server websites. To address this issue, we created a search engine that quickly compiles preprints from disparate host repositories and provides a one-stop search solution. Additionally, we developed a web application that bolsters the discovery of preprints by enabling each and every word or phrase appearing to with articles from preprint servers. This tool, search.bioPreprint, is publicly available at http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/resources/preprint.


Author(s):  
Raf Vanderstraeten

AbstractEducational research expanded rapidly in the twentieth century. This expansion drove the interested “amateurs” out of the field; the scientific community of peers became the dominant point of orientation. Authorship and authority became more widely distributed; peer review was institutionalized to monitor the flow of ideas within the scientific literature; reference lists in journals demonstrated the adoption of cumulative ideals about science. The historical analysis of education journals presented in this chapter looks at the social changes which contributed to the ascent of an “imagined” community of expert peers in the course of the twentieth century. This analysis also helps us in imagining ways in which improvements to the present academic evaluative culture can be made.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document