DOCSLIB.ORG

Abstract Book Oral Abstracts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abstract Book Oral Abstracts Abstract Book Oral abstracts 2 Concurrent session: Arts, humanities, social sciences O-001 Research misconduct in non-empirical research – are there types of misconduct analogous to fabrication and falsification? S. Holm University of Manchester, Manchester Objective: To provide an analysis of how the concept of ’research misconduct’ applies to the production of work in theoretical disciplines, specifically whether there are types of misconduct analogous to fabrication and falsification? Method: Conceptual analysis with the use of real world exemplars of potential misconduct. Results: (a) There are types of misconduct where identical forms of actions/behaviour can be found in the empirical sciences and in theoretical work, e.g. plagiarism, authorship and referee misconduct, misrepresentation of prior work, and undisclosed significant conflicts of interest. (b) There are analogues to the two ‘big Fs’ of research misconduct, i.e. fabrication and falsification of data, in theoretical disciplines (‘F-analogues’). The core wrong making feature of the two Fs are best analysed as ‘deliberate deception in order to convince the reader to accept a claim, when that claim is in reality not supported by the “evidence” presented’. There are forms of deliberate deception in theoretical work that instantiate a very closely related wrong making feature, i.e. ‘deliberate deception in order to convince the reader to accept a claim, when that claim is in reality not supported by the “argument” presented.’ In my own field of research, applied philosophical ethics it is possible to identify at least four F-analogues, i.e. deliberate 1) cherry picking of empirical premises, 2) elision of key terms, 3) using ‘thick’ concepts as if they were ‘thin’, and 4) suppressing embarrassing implications. Examples will be presented of each. (c) Two possible counterargument to the claim that there are F-analogues in theoretical work will be briefly considered. One is based on the claim that some types of published academic work are better described as advocacy or contributions to policy debates than as reporting research and that the category of research misconduct therefore does not or cannot apply to such work. Another counterargument points out that whereas the Fs can be unequivocally proven to be deliberate in many circumstances, deficiencies in theoretical work can be due to non-deliberate sloppiness and lack of care. Both counterarguments will be briefly refuted. Conclusion: There are types of misconduct in research in theoretical disciplines that is analogous to fabrication and falsification. Four specific F-analogues have been identified. O-002 Questionable research practices in the humanities. Evidence from a comprehensive focus group and survey study (the PRINT project) M.P. Sørensen, T. Ravn, J.W. Schneider Aarhus University, Aarhus Objective: So far, Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) have primarily been studied with a focus on the quantitative parts of Psychology, Medicine, Natural Sciences etc. In this presentation, we focus on QRPs within the Humanities, which so far have been understudied with respect to QRPs. We will present results from the PRINT project (Practices, Perceptions, and Patterns of Research Integrity: https://osf.io/rf4bn/) in order to answer the following research questions: • Which QRPs are considered the most severe within the Humanities by the researchers working within these disciplines? • Which QRPs are the most prevalent within the Humanities by the researchers working within these disciplines? Method: The presentation is based on evidence from a focus group study among Danish researchers (22 focus groups, completed December 2017) and a survey study (to be completed by December 2018) among all Danish researchers plus researchers from ten universities across the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Total sample for the survey: approximately 55,000. 3 Results: Our preliminary analysis of the results from the focus group study shows that there are huge differences between the Humanities and the other scientific main areas’ understanding and experience of what is and is not a QRP as well as of the understanding of the seriousness and prevalence of the different QRPs. We asked the participants in the discipline divided focus groups to rank a fixed set of eight QRPs according to seriousness and prevalence. We further asked them to think of other QRPs within their fields of research. We ended up with very different QRPs within the different main areas of science but we also saw differences between the different disciplines within the Humanities. We expect that the survey will show similar results and shed more light on these differences. Conclusion: Our presentation will help us gain a deeper understanding of the nature and character of QRPs within the Humanities that up until now have been understudied. O-003 Possibility of redefining fabrication and falsification in humanities T.I. Iseda Kyoto University, Kyoto Objective: The purpose of this paper is to extend and enrich the notions of fabrication and falsification so that we can properly deal with certain kinds of research misconducts in humanities. By locating fabrication and falsification properly within the context of humanities, I want to show the way to make the efforts to promote research integrity, which have been driven manly by natural science disciplines (especially biomedical science disciplines), truly interdisciplinary. Method: The method of the paper is largely theoretical and speculative, using some actual and imaginary cases. Cases included are: the case of Castaneda, purposive mistranslation of texts in less known language; purposive misleading partial quotation from hard-to-access text; purposive misinterpretation of hard-to –understand text. result: When we compare the structure of empirical studies (including both natural and social sciences) and humanities, the role played by data in empirical studies is roughly played by certain kind of written texts, which is often called primary texts or primary source. Some of the improper uses of primary texts have analogous effects as fabrications and falsifications of data in empirical studies. The reason why this has been overlooked is that primary texts used in humanities are usually publicly accessible. However, physical accessibility does not imply content-wise accessibility. Another reason why this category of misconduct has been overlooked is that it is easily confused with plagiarism-type misconduct. However, epistemically negative effects of improper use of primary texts are closer to those of fabrication and falsification in empirical studies than to plagiarism. Conclusion: Calling some improper uses of primary texts 'fabrications' and 'falsifications' reveals some essential features of research misconducts in humanities. In particular, seriousness of improper treatments of textual sources is highlighted by classifying such bad scholarship in humanities as research misconduct. 4 O-004 Interdisciplinary approach as a solution to address the emerging issues of academic integrity in behavioral and social sciences in Pakistan F.M. Mahmood University of the Punjab, Lahore Objective: Pakistani context of academia is different than other countries. The focus on research in higher education in Pakistan is a recent phenomenon. It is found that academic disciplines work in isolation and an approach of interdisciplinary collaboration, interaction and integration is missing in the disciplines included in the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences (FBSS). On the other hand various disciplines falling in the domain of FBSS offer similarities both in theory and research. The lack of interdisciplinary approach in FBSS in Pakistan has made the emerging challenges of academic integrity more complex and challenging. This study was conducted to find how academic interdisciplinary approach can be used to address the issues of replication, reproducibility, research waste, non embedment of research with education, industry & government mistrust, mismanagement of research misconduct and innovation impact lacking in order to ensure academic integrity in FBSS. Method: Qualitative in depth interviews were used as research method. Total twenty interviews of academicians belonging to different academic departments of FBSS of public and private sector universities were conducted. Sample was selected through purposive sampling. Results: It is found that there is a lack of an approach towards interdisciplinary interaction and collaboration in Pakistani academia that is creating hurdles to ensure academic integrity in Pakistani Universities especially in the subjects of FBSS. It is also found that issue of research reproducibility and replication is low at the level of faculty and senior researchers but it is high at the level of students. Research waste was identified as a very serious issue. There is no central repository for researchers to find the past and current research work. The challenges posed by big data and other emerging trends in research demand allocation of more resources that is only possible through interdisciplinary collaboration. Participants declared presence of orthodoxy, lack of resources, absence of policies and hesitation from stakeholders as main hindrances to achieve goal of interdisciplinary collaboration in FBSS in Pakistan. Conclusion: It is concluded that interdisciplinary approach can be helpful to ensure more academic integrity in FBSS by addressing the issues of replication, reproducibility and research
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Preprint
    Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project Jodi Schneider*, Nathan D. Woods, Randi Proescholdt, Yuanxi Fu, and the RISRS Team July 2021 *Corresponding author: [email protected] and [email protected] Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Recommendations 4 INTRODUCTION 5 RISRS Project Goals and Assumptions 6 Framing the Problem 8 Scope of this Document 9 THE RISRS PROCESS 10 Scoping Literature Review 10 Interviews 11 Workshop, Dissemination, and Implementation 11 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CURRENT AWARENESS 11 Reasons for Retraction 11 Formats and Types of Retraction 13 Field Variation 15 Continued Citation of Retracted Papers: What Went Wrong? 20 Visibility of Retraction Status 24 Inconsistent Retraction Metadata 25 Quality of Retraction Notices 26 Literature Review Conclusions 28 DEFINING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 29 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES DESCRIBED BY THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE ON RETRACTION 29 Problem Themes Described by the Empirical Literature on Retraction 30 Opportunity Themes Described by the Empirical Literature on Retraction 32 Problem Definition Described by the Empirical Literature on Retraction 35 THEMES FROM STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 36 Problem Frameworks based on Stakeholder Interviews 36 Contentious Themes based on Stakeholder Interviews 38 The Purpose of Retraction According to Stakeholder Interviews 38 Changing the Scholarly Record 39 The Harms of Retraction According to Stakeholder Interviews 39 The Character of Reform According to Stakeholder Interviews 40 SYNTHESIZING THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 41 Aligning Opportunity Pathways 41 Defining the Scale and Scope of the Problem 42 RECOMMENDATIONS 43 1. Develop a Systematic Cross-industry Approach to Ensure the Public Availability of Consistent, Standardized, Interoperable, and Timely Information about Retractions.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Research Integrity Into the History of Science
    HOS0010.1177/0073275320952257History of ScienceMody et al. 952257research-article2020 Introduction HOS History of Science 2020, Vol. 58(4) 369 –385 Integrating research integrity © The Author(s) 2020 into the history of science https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275320952257Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0073275320952257 journals.sagepub.com/home/hos Cyrus C. M. Mody Maastricht University, Netherlands H. Otto Sibum Uppsala University, Sweden Lissa L. Roberts University of Twente, Netherlands Abstract This introductory essay frames our special issue by discussing how attention to the history of research integrity and fraud can stimulate new historical and methodological insights of broader import to historians of science. Keywords Scientific integrity, fraud, scientific values, scientific controversies, history of science The politics of integrity In the companion introductory essay to this special issue, readers encounter the accusa- tions and counter-accusations surrounding Didier Raoult.1 Controversial figures like Raoult make compelling reading. The lurid details of his appearance, provocative lan- guage, past defiance of conventional wisdom, current climate denialism, and compli- cated relationship with his staff draw attention and generate doubts about the integrity of 1. Lissa L. Roberts, H. Otto Sibum and Cyrus C. M. Mody, “Integrating the History of Science into Broader Discussions of Research Integrity and Fraud,” History of Science 58 (2020): 354–68. Corresponding author: Lissa L. Roberts, University
    [Show full text]
  • Boletín Fármacos: Ética Y Derecho
    Boletín Fármacos: Ética y Derecho Boletín electrónico para fomentar el acceso y el uso adecuado de medicamentos http://www.saludyfarmacos.org/boletin-farmacos/ Publicado por Salud y Fármacos Volumen 23, número 3, agosto 2020 Boletín Fármacos es un boletín electrónico de la organización Salud y Fármacos que se publica cuatro veces al año: el último día de cada uno de los siguientes meses: febrero, mayo, agosto y noviembre. Editores Equipo de Traductores Núria Homedes Beguer, EE.UU. Núria Homedes, EE UU Antonio Ugalde, EE.UU. Enrique Muñoz Soler, España Antonio Ugalde, EE.UU. Asesores de Ética Maria Cristina Latorre, Colombia Claudio Lorenzo, Brasil Andrea Carolina Reyes Rojas, Colombia Jan Helge Solbakk, Noruega Jaime Escobar, Colombia Editores Asociados Corina Bontempo Duca de Freitas, Brasil Asesores en Ensayos Clínicos Albin Chaves, Costa Rica Juan Erviti, España Hernán Collado, Costa Rica Gianni Tognoni, Italia Francisco Debesa García, Cuba Emma Verástegui, México Anahí Dresser, México Claude Verges, Panamá José Humberto Duque, Colombia Albert Figueras, España Asesor en Publicidad y Promoción Sergio Gonorazky, Argentina Adriane Fugh-Berman Alejandro Goyret, Uruguay Eduardo Hernández, México Corresponsales Luis Justo, Argentina Rafaela Sierra, Centro América Óscar Lanza, Bolivia Steven Orozco Arcila, Colombia René Leyva, México Raquel Abrantes, Brasil Duilio Fuentes, Perú Benito Marchand, Ecuador Webmaster Gabriela Minaya, Perú People Walking Bruno Schlemper Junior, Brasil Xavier Seuba, España Federico Tobar, Panamá Francisco Rossi, Colombia Boletín Fármacos solicita comunicaciones, noticias, y artículos de investigación sobre cualquier tema relacionado con el acceso y uso de medicamentos; incluyendo temas de farmacovigilancia; políticas de medicamentos; ensayos clínicos; ética y medicamentos; dispensación y farmacia; comportamiento de la industria; prácticas recomendables y prácticas cuestionadas de uso y promoción de medicamentos.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics, Transparency and Independency in Scientific Publications
    Dermatology and Cosmetology International Journal Opinion Ethics, Transparency and Independency in Scientific Publications. An Appeal to the International Community Torello Lotti* Department of Dermatology, University of Rome G Marconi, Italy Opinion 2. Evidence - The Editor of the Millennium Issue of the Archives of Derma our Discipline and to envision future developments. On January tology asked few opinion leaders to assess the state of the Art of 1st 3. Repetition always available - 4. Experimental observation for testing hypotheses 2000, Volume 136, N. 1 of the JAMA Dermatology was available for saluting the New Millennium. I contributed with a page enti the skin” in which I tried to identify the “Diseases of Dermatology” 5. Conclusions based on the experimental evidence tled “The Renaissance of Dermatology: selected concepts beyond 6. Critical analysis for verification illnesses pandemics and even death of our Discipline.1 One of my and, more in general, the “Disease of Science” possibly bringing to 7. Critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment spurn, to disdain and to loathe pseudoscience. I proudly confess to be part of the “Family of Science” and to main concerns was the reliability of the results of the double blind - randomized clinical trials i.e. touching bases of the Evidence-Based The sight or the smell of pseudoscience makes me sick. I’m not Medicine (EBM), Good Clinical Practice and Ethics in Scientific Pub - alone. According to Michael Gordin “no one in the history of the lication and Ethics, Transparency and Independency of Scientific entists or at least we think so. Publications.Pseudoscience and science: who are you? world has ever self-identified as a pseudoscientist”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pandemic Issue
    PLACES — PHILANTHROPISTS — CELEBRITIES — WHISTLEBLOWERS — COMPANIES — MEDIA — PRODUCTS — POLITICIANS — SCIENTISTS — ACTIONS JUNE 2020 IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GOOD10: The Pandemic Issue Photos taken by Christophe Maut while in quarantine in Paris, France 2 3 Editors’ note: In the spirit of hope and resilience, we present GOOD10: The Pandemic Issue The Pandemic Issue, in which we explore big-picture ways that science innovation and communication can usher in a more equitable, more progress-oriented, and safer world. This issue is a collaboration among the science outlet leapsmag, the impact and engagement company GOOD, GOOD10: and the Aspen Institute Science & Society Program. The GOOD10 format explores fundamental issues facing humanity through the lenses of ten forces pushing the needle toward progress: PLACES, PHILANTHROPISTS — CELEBRITIES — WHISTLEBLOWERS — COMPANIES — MEDIA — PRODUCTS — POLITICIANS — SCIENTISTS — ACTIONS. Across these categories, we seek to present unexpected and encouraging paradigms emerging from this historic crisis. Six months after discovery of the novel coronavirus, we are beginning to see hints of what the future may hold. This edition is meant to demonstrate that even—or especially—in the face of a global calamity, creative minds across science and society are working together to overcome our world’s fragility. Our vulnerabilities, both medically and economically, have always existed, but the virus brought them into sharp relief. While it may seem impossible to imagine a sunny future on the other side, we hope the
    [Show full text]
  • UC Davis Books
    UC Davis Books Title Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6096m1sp ISBN 9780262356565 Publication Date 2020-01-28 DOI 10.7551/mitpress/11087.001.0001 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Gaming the Metrics Infrastructures Series Edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker and Paul N. Edwards Paul N. Edwards, A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming Lawrence M. Busch, Standards: Recipes for Reality Lisa Gitelman, ed., “Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron Finn Brunton, Spam: A Shadow History of the Internet Nil Disco and Eda Kranakis, eds., Cosmopolitan Commons: Sharing Resources and Risks across Borders Casper Bruun Jensen and Brit Ross Winthereik, Monitoring Movements in Development Aid: Recursive Partnerships and Infrastructures James Leach and Lee Wilson, eds., Subversion, Conversion, Development: Cross- Cultural Knowledge Exchange and the Politics of Design Olga Kuchinskaya, The Politics of Invisibility: Public Knowledge about Radiation Health Effects after Chernobyl Ashley Carse, Beyond the Big Ditch: Politics, Ecology, and Infrastructure at the Panama Canal Alexander Klose, translated by Charles Marcrum II, The Container Principle: How a Box Changes the Way We Think Eric T. Meyer and Ralph Schroeder, Knowledge Machines: Digital Transformations of the Sciences and Humanities Sebastián Ureta, Assembling Policy: Transantiago,
    [Show full text]
  • Elisabeth M Bik
    ELISABETH M BIK PROFILE ● Senior scientist (PhD) with extensive academic and industry experience in the fields of host-associated microbiomes, clinical microbiology, microbial genetics, and scientific integrity ● Experienced writer and editor of scientific papers with extensive knowledge of scientific publishing ● Author of 40+ scientific publications, 7 selected by the Faculty of 1000, Publons.com leaderboard for Stanford, uBiome. ● Experienced keynote / invited speaker at international conferences and science outreach events ● Experienced in collaborating with product development, R&D, marketing, and medical affairs ● Set up several molecular labs, trained and mentored dozens of students, MD fellows, and research assistants ● Experienced user of molecular sequence data analysis and visualization software, including QIIME, R, and MySQL ● Strong experimental skills in a variety of molecular detection of infectious diseases pathogens and microbial communities ● Leading authority in microbiome research with strong science outreach and social media presence, at www.MicrobiomeDigest.com, www.ScienceIntegrityDigest.com, and @MicrobiomDigest (Twitter, 27K followers) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ● Science integrity and misconduct expert, featured in New York Times, Le Monde, Nature, STAT News, The Scientist, etc. RESEARCH and WORK EXPERIENCE March 2019 – present ● Consultant, Harbers Bik LLC. Consultancy for microbiome and scientific integrity research. ​ ​ ​ December 2018 – February 2019 ● Director of Science, Astarte Medical Partners, Foster City, CA. Manager:
    [Show full text]
  • Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847; this version posted October 30, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic Lonni Besançon ID 1,2*, Nathan Peiffer-Smadja ID 3,4, Corentin Segalas ID 5, Haiting Jiang6, Paola Masuzzo ID 7, Cooper Smout ID 7, Eric Billy8, Maxime Deforet ID 9+ and Clémence Leyrat ID 5,10+ 1Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 2Media and Information Technology, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden 3Université de Paris, IAME, INSERM, F-75018 Paris, France 4National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 5Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom 6School of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University, No.101 Longmian Avenue, Nanjing 211166, P.R.China. 7IGDORE, Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education 8Chercheur immuno-oncologie, Strasbourg, France 9Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Jean Perrin (LJP), F-75005, Paris, France 10Inequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom *[email protected] +these authors contributed equally to this work Abstract In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Promouvoir Et Protéger Une Culture Partagée De L'intégrité Scientifique
    N° 3944 N° 428 ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE SÉNAT CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 SESSION ORDINAIRE 2020 - 2021 QUINZIÈME LÉGISLATURE Enregistré à la présidence de l’Assemblée nationale Enregistré à la présidence du Sénat le xx mars 2021 le xx mars 2021 RAPPORT au nom de L’OFFICE PARLEMENTAIRE D'ÉVALUATION DES CHOIX SCIENTIFIQUES ET TECHNOLOGIQUES sur Promouvoir et protéger une culture partagée de l’intégrité scientifique PAR M. Pierre HENRIET, député, et M. Pierre OUZOULIAS, sénateur Déposé sur le Bureau de l’Assemblée nationale Déposé sur le Bureau du Sénat par M. Cédric VILLANI, par M. Gérard LONGUET Président de l'Office Premier vice-président de l’Office — 3 — Composition de l’Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques Président M. Cédric VILLANI, député Premier vice-président M. Gérard LONGUET, sénateur Vice-présidents M. Didier BAICHÈRE, député Mme Sonia de LA PRÔVOTÉ, sénatrice M. Jean-Luc FUGIT, député Mme Angèle PRÉVILLE, sénatrice M. Patrick HETZEL, député Mme Catherine PROCACCIA, sénatrice DEPUTES SENATEURS M. Julien AUBERT Mme Laure DARCOS M. Philippe BOLO Mme Annie DELMONT-KOROPOULIS Mme Émilie CARIOU M. André GUIOL M. Jean-François ELIAOU M. Ludovic HAYE Mme Valéria FAURE-MUNTIAN M. Olivier HENNO M. Claude de GANAY Mme Annick JACQUEMET M. Thomas GASSILLOUD M. Bernard JOMIER Mme Anne GENETET Mme Florence LASSARADE M. Pierre HENRIET M. Ronan Le GLEUT M. Antoine HERTH M. Pierre MÉDEVIELLE M. Jean-Paul LECOQ Mme Michelle MEUNIER M. Gérard LESEUL M. Pierre OUZOULIAS M. Loïc PRUD’HOMME M. Stéphane PIEDNOIR Mme Huguette TIEGNA M. Bruno SIDO — 5 — SOMMAIRE ___ Pages SYNTHESE ............................................................................................ 9 SAISINE ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Concours Externe De Bibliothécaires
    FBE EP1 SESSION 2021 ____ CONCOURS EXTERNE DE BIBLIOTHÉCAIRES NOTE DE SYNTHÈSE ÉTABLIE À PARTIR D’UN DOSSIER COMPORTANT DES DOCUMENTS EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE Durée : 4 heures ____ L’usage de tout ouvrage de référence, de tout dictionnaire et de tout matériel électronique (y compris la calculatrice) est rigoureusement interdit. Votre note ne devra pas excéder 4 pages maximum. Si vous repérez ce qui vous semble être une erreur d’énoncé, vous devez le signaler très lisiblement sur votre copie, en proposer la correction et poursuivre l’épreuve en conséquence. De même, si cela vous conduit à formuler une ou plusieurs hypothèses, vous devez la (ou les) mentionner explicitement. NB : Conformément au principe d’anonymat, votre copie ne doit comporter aucun signe distinctif, tel que nom, signature, origine, etc. Si le travail qui vous est demandé consiste notamment en la rédaction d’un projet ou d’une note, vous devrez impérativement vous abstenir de la signer ou de l’identifier. Tournez la page S.V.P. A Rédiger une note de synthèse de 4 pages maximum à partir du dossier joint comportant des documents en langue française Dossier : La preuve scientifique Document 1 : Nicholas Wade et William Broad, La Souris truquée : enquête sur la fraude scientifique, p. 274-281 (4 pages) Document 2 : Marie Ingouf, « Pourquoi la mythique expérience de Stanford est une imposture », Les Inrockuptibles [en ligne], 22/04/2018 (3 pages) Document 3 : Eric Guilyardi, « Science sans confiance », Le Monde, samedi 5 août 2017 (4 pages) Document 4 : Etienne Meyer-Vacherand, « Une nouvelle crédibilité scientifique à construire », Le temps, samedi 13 juin 2020, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons
    Besançon et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology (2021) 21:117 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y COMMENTARY Open Access Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic Lonni Besançon1,2* , Nathan Peiffer-Smadja3,4, Corentin Segalas5, Haiting Jiang6, Paola Masuzzo7, Cooper Smout7, Eric Billy8, Maxime Deforet9 and Clémence Leyrat5,10 Abstract In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/. Keywords: Open science, Peer review, Methodology, COVID-19 Introduction that has since informed practice but a considerable num- The COVID-19 outbreak represents an urgent threat ber of these studies suffer methodological weaknesses, to global health. On October 15, 2020, the number of limiting the interpretability of their findings [2] or leading COVID-19 cases had exceeded 38 million and the death to false claims with a potentially dramatic impact on pub- toll had exceeded 1,000,000 worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Elisabeth Bik Quit Her Job to Spot Errors in Research Papers — and Has Become the Public Face of Image Sleuthing
    Feature NATURE GABRIELA HASBUN FOR FOR GABRIELA HASBUN SEEING DOUBLE Elisabeth Bik quit her job to spot errors in research papers — and has become the public face of image sleuthing. By Helen Shen 132 | Nature | Vol 581 | 14 May 2020 ©2021 Spri nger Nature Li mited. All ri ghts reserved. ©2021 Spri nger Nature Li mited. All ri ghts reserved. ARE YOU A SUPERSPOTTER? Elisabeth Bik identified five duplicated areas in these cell microscopy images from separate experiments in two figures in a paper. We have simplified the labels. Can you spot the duplications? (Answers overleaf). a b c d 1 2 (2019). , E0214018 14 3 , E91566 (2014); RETRACTION RETRACTION , E91566 (2014); 9 PLOS ONE PLOS ET AL. 4 SOURCE: S. GENG S. GENG SOURCE: the Belgian message. Attached are images or years chasing things which turn out to not of western blots — the results of a common be valid,” he says. test to detect proteins in biological samples Bik is not the world’s only image sleuth, but — from a published research paper. The writer she is unique in how publicly she presents her wants to know: does Bik see anything fishy in work. Many image checkers work behind the this paper? Have these pictures been digitally scenes, publishing their findings in research altered? papers and writing privately to journals; a few Bik, a microbiologist from the Netherlands are hired by journals or institutions. Some who who moved to the United States almost two flag up image problems work under pseudo- decades ago, is a widely lauded super-spotter nyms, preferring not to be identified.
    [Show full text]