Certified Amplification: An Emerging Scientific Norm and Ethos

The Mertonian norms of science were envisioned at a time when scientific communication was relatively centralized and hierarchical. However, Web 2.0 technologies and social media platforms have generated new systemic vulnerabilities by divorcing the certification and amplification of science. This paper argues for certified amplification, a Mertonian-styled norm that enjoins their recoupling, and introduces a taxonomy of strategies institutions have adopted to close the certification-amplification gap. The examples illustrating each taxonomic type collectively paint a picture of an ethos emerging in a decentralized fashion across a heterogeneous range of objects, communication modalities, and institutional contexts.

Prevalence of responsible research practices and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

BackgroundWhile substantial attention has been paid to research misbehaviors, responsible research practices (RRPs) and their potential explanatory factors have not been studied extensively.Methods The National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is an online survey targeting all disciplines and academic ranks in The Netherlands. Data was collected on 11 RRPs and 12 explanatory factor scales. Results were controlled for explanatory factor scales, academic rank, disciplinary field, gender, doing empirical research and if respondents belonged to a NSRI supporting institution or not.Results6,813 respondents completed the survey. The RRPs with the highest prevalence were avoiding plagiarism (99%), disclosing conflicts of interest (96.5%) and checking for errors before publication (94.3%). Preregistration of study protocols (42.8%), making accessible underlying data and syntaxes (47.2%), and keeping comprehensive research records (56.3%) had the lowest prevalence. Arts and humanities scholars, PhD candidates and junior researchers were associated with a lower RRP mean (-0.51 and -0.31 respectively) as was publication pressure (-0.05; 95% CI -0.08, -0.02). Mentoring (0.15; 95% CI 0.12, 0.17), scientific norm subscription (0.13; 95% CI 0.1, 0.15) and funding pressure (0.13; 95% CI0.10, 0.17) were significantly associated with a higher RRP mean.ConclusionsWe found publication pressure to affect RRPs negatively. Mentoring, scientific norm subscription and funding pressure may help foster RRPs. Arts and humanities scholars, PhD candidates and junior researchers need more efforts to raise awareness on RRPs. Further research on these groups is warranted in order to understand research integrity challenges that may be unique to them.

Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

BackgroundPrevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers.Methods The National Survey on Research Integrity was aimed at all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. The survey enquired about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used a randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. Results6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95 % CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in ≥ 1 QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in ≥ 1 QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with lower odds of research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with higher odds of engaging frequently in ≥ 1 QRP (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30).ConclusionsWe found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system can promote research integrity.

REPRÉSENTATIONS CONCEPTUELLES D'ÉTUDIANTS DU SECONDAIRE PROFESSIONNEL: PROPRIÉTÉS PHYSIQUES DE LA DIODE NON POLARISÉE / CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF STUDENTS PROFESSIONAL SECONDARY: PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE NON-POLARIZED DIODE

Une méthode de recherche de type qualitatif a permis d’identifier les représentations conceptuelles d’étudiants du secondaire professionnel (17 à 20 ans) au Québec, en ce qui concerne les propriétés physiques d’un objet technique, à savoir une diode non polarisée. Nous procédons à cette reconstitution à partir de moyens classiques, tels le questionnaire écrit et les entretiens individuels. Cette étude nous permet, d’une part, de mettre en évidence ces conceptions et, d’autre part, de proposer quelques orientations didactiques. Notre recherche démontre qu’après un enseignement formel, les conceptions des élèves interrogés sont erronées comparativement à celles communément acceptées. Ces résultats mettent en lumière une mauvaise appropriation de notions telles que les porteurs de charges mobiles (électrons et trous) et les porteurs de charges fixes (ions). Following the guidelines of qualitative type research, we shall in this paper reconstitute the conceptual representations by secondary level students at the professional school (ages 17-20) of physical phenomena which subtend the physical properties of the non-biased diode. For the first time, this study shows that their conceptions of these phenomena are erroneous. In a second time, we identify the physical phenomena on which the educator should facilitate the students to construct conceptions that conform to the scientific norm. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0772/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

Hoekstra & Vazire (2020), Intellectual humility is central to science

The replication crisis in the social, behavioural, and life sciences has spurred a reform movement aimed at increasing the credibility of scientific studies. Many of these credibility-enhancing reforms focus, appropriately, on specific research and publication practices. A less often mentioned aspect of credibility is the need for intellectual humility, or owning the limitations of our work. When scientific communication is overconfident or contains too many exaggerations, the field stands to lose its credibility, even if the methods and statistics underlying the research are sound. We argue that intellectual humility is given a great deal of lip service, but is too rarely valued - we may say that we as scientists ought to be intellectually humble, but our actions as a field suggest that this is not a priority. Although we acknowledge that intellectual humility is presented as a widely accepted scientific norm, we argue that current research practice does not actually incentivize intellectual humility. A promising solution could be to use our roles as reviewers to incentivize authors putting the flaws and uncertainty in their work front and center, thus giving their critics ammunition to find their errors. We describe several ways reviewers (and authors) can contribute to increasing humility in practice, and thereby contributing to enhancing the credibility of our science.

Scientific Sharing, Communism, and the Social Contract

Research programs regularly compete to achieve the same goal, such as the discovery of the structure of DNA or the construction of a TEA laser. The more the competing programs share information, the faster the goal is likely to be reached, to society’s benefit. But the “priority rule”—the scientific norm according to which the first program to reach the goal in question must receive all the credit for the achievement—provides a powerful disincentive for programs to share information. How, then, is the clash between social and individual interest resolved in scientific practice? This chapter investigates what Robert Merton called science’s “communist” norm, which mandates universal sharing of knowledge, and uses mathematical models of discovery to argue that a communist regime may be on the whole advantageous and fair to all parties, and so might be implemented by a social contract that all scientists would be willing to sign.