DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Preprint

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. 44 Individual Recommendations for Consistent, Standardized, Interoperable, and Timely Information about Retractions 45 2. Recommend a Taxonomy of Retraction Categories/Classifications and Corresponding Retraction Metadata that can be Adopted by All Stakeholders. 46 Individual Recommendations for Taxonomy and Metadata 46 3. Develop Best Practices for Coordinating the Retraction Process to Enable Timely, Fair, and Unbiased Outcomes. 47 Individual Recommendations for Coordinating the Retraction Process 48 4. Educate Stakeholders About Publication Correction Processes including Retraction and about Pre- and Post-Publication Stewardship of the Scholarly Record. 48 Individual Recommendations for Educating Stakeholders 48 Researcher Education 48 Authors 49 Topic Editors 50 Editorial Education 50 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 52 1. Implementation Actions for Recommendation #1: Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions. 52 2. Implementation Actions for Recommendation #2: Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders. 54 3. Implementation Actions for Recommendation #3: Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, and unbiased outcomes. 54 4. Implementation Actions for Recommendation #4: Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record. 55 1 RESEARCH AGENDA 56 1. Research Actions for Recommendation #1: Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions. 57 2. Research Actions for Recommendation #2: Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders. 58 3. Research Actions for Recommendation #3: Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, and unbiased outcomes. 58 4. Research Actions for Recommendation #4: Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record. 60 5. Research Actions Related to RISRS Process Outcomes. 62 6. Research Actions Related to RISRS Citation Research. 63 CONCLUSIONS 64 Implementation Strategy 65 A Call to Implement and Collaborate 65 LIST OF APPENDICES 66 CRediT CONTRIBUTOR STATEMENT FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS 66 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY 66 Note: Previous versions of this document appeared in draft as documents at F1000Research, as follows: Draft March 14, 2021 Schneider J, Woods ND, Proescholdt R et al. Reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science: Shaping a research and implementation agenda [version 1; not peer reviewed]. F1000Research 2021, 10:211 (document) (https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1118522.1) Draft, April 27, 2021 Schneider J, Woods ND, Proescholdt R et al. Reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science: Shaping a research and implementation agenda [version 1; not peer reviewed]. F1000Research 2021, 10:329 (document) (https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1118546.1) 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Retracted research is published work that is withdrawn, removed, or otherwise invalidated from the scientific and scholarly record. This may occur for many different reasons, which can include error, misconduct, or fraud. Retracting research is intended to stop its continued citation and use, but many retracted papers continue to be used. Retracted research that is integrated into the scientific publication network via citations—either before or after retraction—enables the inadvertent propagation of potentially unsupported or fabricated data, fundamental errors, and unreproducible results, or can lead to misattribution of results or ideas (e.g., in cases of retraction due to dual publication, plagiarism, or ownership). Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. Many retracted papers are not marked as retracted on publisher and aggregator sites, and retracted articles may still be found in readers’ PDF libraries, including in reference management systems such as Zotero, EndNote, and Mendeley. Most publishers do not systematically surveil bibliographies of submitted manuscripts, and most editors do not query whether a citation to a retracted paper is justified. When citing retracted papers, authors frequently do not indicate retraction status in bibliographies or in-text citations. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project is to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This includes identifying how the gatekeepers of scientific publications can monitor and disseminate retraction status and determining what other actions are feasible and relevant. The RISRS process included an exploratory environment scan, a scoping review of empirical literature, and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop (October 26, November 9, and November 16, 2020) that brought together a diverse body of 70 stakeholders to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Recommendations were iteratively updated and developed through a series of surveys and drafts as well as at a followup meeting online February 16, 2021. The RISRS team solicited feedback from presentations to NISOPlus, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, and the European Association of Science Editors. Implementation actions have started through a COPE task force on taxonomy and discussions about a proposed National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Work Item. We welcome your feedback via the project website https://infoqualitylab.org/projects/risrs2020/ or by email to [email protected]. We encourage you to disseminate these recommendations and to envision how you, in your role, and in collaborative partnerships, can make a difference. For instance, you might help form a professional working group to further develop or refine these recommendations; present about retraction and related issues at professional and academic meetings; take on an implementation or policy project; or outline further research to be conducted. 3 Recommendations 1. Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions. 2. Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders. 3. Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes. 4. Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record. 4 INTRODUCTION Retracted research is published work that is withdrawn, removed, or otherwise invalidated from the scientific and scholarly record. An article may be retracted due to the unreliability of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparison of Altmetric Scores of Open Access Articles and of Articles
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Heft 444 Altmetrics and Open Access Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sciences von Lea Satzinger Altmetrics and Open Access Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sciences von Lea Satzinger Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Begründet von Peter Zahn Herausgegeben von Vivien Petras Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Heft 444 Satzinger, Lea Altmetrics and Open Access : Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sci- ences / von Lea Satzinger. - Berlin : Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswis- senschaft der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2019. – 81 S. : 15 Abb. - (Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft ; 444) ISSN 14 38-76 62 Abstract Altmetrics, in contrast to traditional metrics, measure the societal impact research outputs have on the public in general, using social media platforms as their primary data sources. In this study, differences in Altmetric Scores between open and closed access articles of German research institutions in the field of natural sciences have been analyzed. For this investigation data from the years 2013 to 2017 was gathered from Web of Science, Altmetric.com and Unpaywall. Results indicated that arti- cles published in open access gain higher Altmetric Attention Scores compared to articles behind subscription paywalls, although the difference was statistically not significant. Research outputs published in gold open access had the highest scores, followed by articles in green and then hybrid open access.
    [Show full text]
  • THE OA EFFECT: HOW DOES OPEN ACCESS AFFECT the USAGE of SCHOLARLY BOOKS? White Paper
    springernature.com Illustration inspired by the work of Jean-Claude Bradley Open Research THE OA EFFECT: HOW DOES OPEN ACCESS AFFECT THE USAGE OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS? White paper Open Research: Journals, books, data and tools from: 2 The OA effect: How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books? springernature.com Contents Authors Foreword . 3 Christina Emery, Mithu Lucraft, Executive summary . 4 Agata Morka, Ros Pyne Introduction . 5 November 2017 Part 1: Quantitative findings . 6 Summary . 6 Downloads . 7 Citations and mentions . 11 Part 2: Qualitative findings . 13 Summary . 13 Reasons for publishing open access . 14 Experience of publishing open access . 15 The future of open access . 16 Discussion . 18 Conclusion and recommendations . 20 Acknowledgements . 22 Contacts . 23 About Springer Nature and OA books . 24 Appendices . 26 Appendix 1: Definitions and limitations . 26 Appendix 2: Methodology . 27 Appendix 3: Top 10 downloaded books . 29 Appendix 4: Interviewed authors and funders . 30 Appendix 5: Author questionnaire . 32 Appendix 6: Funder questionnaire . 33 Appendix 7: References . 34 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0) The OA effect: How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books? springernature.com 3 Foreword Springer Nature was created in 2015, but from our earliest days as Springer, Palgrave Macmillan and Nature, we have been publishing monographs and long-form research for some 175 years. The changing environment for book publishing has created both opportunities and challenges for researchers and their funders, for publishers, and for the wider community of readers and educators. As a publisher, we have championed new models of scholarship, introducing ebooks in 2006, and our first open access (OA) book in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMISSION from SPRINGER NATURE Making Plan S Successful
    PLAN S IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE: SUBMISSION FROM SPRINGER NATURE Springer Nature welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the cOAlition S Implementation Guidance and contribute to the discussion on how the transition to Open Access (OA) can be accelerated. Our submission below focuses mainly on the second question posed in the consultation: Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs? Making Plan S successful: a commitment to open access Springer Nature is dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing and Open Research techniques. As the world’s largest OA publisher we are a committed partner for cOAlition S funders in achieving this goal which is also the primary focus of Plan S. Our recommendations below are therefore presented with the aim of achieving this goal. As a first mover, we know the (multiple) challenges that need to be overcome: funding flows that need to change, a lack of cooperation in funder policies, a lack of global coordination, the need for a cultural change in researcher assessment and metrics in research, academic disciplines that lack OA resources, geographic differences in levels of research output making global “Publish and Read” deals difficult and, critically, an author community that does not yet view publishing OA as a priority. While this uncertainty remains, we need the benefits of OA to be better described and promoted as well as support for the ways that enable us and other publishers to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. We therefore propose cOAlition S adopt the following six recommendations which we believe are necessary to deliver Plan S’s primary goal of accelerating the take-up of OA globally while minimising costs to funders and other stakeholders: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Validity of Altmetrics Data for Measuring Societal Impact
    Accepted for publication in the Journal of Informetrics Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag “good for teaching” do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag – if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented (“new finding”). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact. If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers’ subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Phenomenography to Study Factors Affecting the Propagation of Invalid Science
    ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﯽ ﻣﺠﻠﻪ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﭘﺰﺷﮑﯽ رﻓﺴﻨﺠﺎن دوره 16، اﺳﻔﻨﺪ 1396، -1114 1097 ﺑﻪ ﮐﺎرﮔﯿﺮي روش ﭘﺪﯾﺪار ﻧﮕﺎري ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ در اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﻬﺪي دادﺧﻮاه1، ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻟﮕﺰﯾﺎن2، زﻫﺮا ﻫﻤﺖ1 درﯾﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ: 27/6/96 ارﺳﺎل ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﯾﺴﻨﺪه ﺟﻬﺖ اﺻﻼح: 27/8/96 درﯾﺎﻓﺖ اﺻﻼﺣﯿﻪ از ﻧﻮﯾﺴﻨﺪه: 10/11/96 ﭘﺬﯾﺮش ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ: 96/11/24 ﭼﮑﯿﺪه زﻣﯿﻨﻪ و ﻫﺪف: ﻫﺪف اﯾﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﻋﻮاﻣﻠﯽ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﯽﺷﻮﻧﺪ. آﮔﺎﻫﯽ از ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ در اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎن اﯾﻦ ﻓﺮﺻﺖ را ﻣﯽدﻫﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺑﯿﻨﺸﯽ وﺳﯿﻊﺗﺮ و ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت آﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ اﻗﺪام ﺑﻪ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺧﻮد ﻧﻤﺎﯾﻨﺪ و ﺑﺪﯾﻦ ﺻﻮرت از اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺑﻪ وﺳﯿﻠﮥ ﺧﻮدداري از اﺳﺘﻔﺎده آنﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﭘﺎﯾﮥ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺧﻮد ﺟﻠﻮﮔﯿﺮي ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﻞ آورﻧﺪ. ﻣﻮاد و روش: در اﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روﯾﮑﺮد ﮐﯿﻔﯽ ﭘﺪﯾﺪارﻧﮕﺎري، ﺑﻪ ﮐﺎرﮔﯿﺮي ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﮔﯿﺮي ﻫﺪﻓﻤﻨﺪ و اﻧﺠﺎم ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺑﺎ 12 ﻧﻔﺮ ﮐﻪ در زﻣﯿﻨﮥ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻋﻠﻤﯽ، ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ و ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ داراي داﻧﺶ و ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ، ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ در اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﮔﺮدﯾﺪهاﻧﺪ؛ اﺑﺘﺪا ﺑﺎ اﻧﺠﺎم ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ و ﮐﺪﮔﺬاري ﻧﻈﺮي 8 ﻃﺒﻘﻪ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻔﯽ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ اﺣﺼﺎء ﺷﺪﻧﺪ و ﺳﭙﺲ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺳﻬﻮﻟﺖ در درك ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ، ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ در اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت ﻓﺮآﯾﻨﺪي در ﻓﻀﺎي ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ اراﺋﻪ ﮔﺮدﯾﺪ. ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎ: ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ اﯾﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﮐﯽ از آن اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﯽ در اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﻋﻠﻤﯽ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ دﺧﯿﻞ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ در ﻧﻈﺮﮔﯿﺮي ﻓﺮاﯾﻨﺪ اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﯾﮏ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﮥ ﻋﻠﻤﯽ، ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ در اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ را ﻣﯽﺗﻮان در ﺳﻪ ﻣﺤﻮر اﺻﻠﯽ ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ، ﻓﺮآﯾﻨﺪ ارزﯾﺎﺑﯽ و اﻧﺘﺸﺎر ﻋﻠﻢ ﺟﺎي داد.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact on Citations and Altmetrics Peter E. Clayson*1, Scott
    1 The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics Peter E. Clayson*1, Scott A. Baldwin2, and Michael J. Larson2,3 1Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 2Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 3Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT *Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, US, 33620-7200. Email: [email protected] 2 Disclosure Michael J. Larson, PhD, is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Psychophysiology. Editing of the manuscript was handled by a separate editor and Dr. Larson was blinded from viewing the reviews or comments as well as the identities of the reviewers. 3 Abstract Barriers to accessing scientific findings contribute to knowledge inequalities based on financial resources and decrease the transparency and rigor of scientific research. Recent initiatives aim to improve access to research as well as methodological rigor via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles (i.e., publisher archived) with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions.
    [Show full text]
  • Scooped! Estimating Rewards for Priority in Science∗
    Scooped! Estimating Rewards for Priority in Science∗ Ryan Hilly Carolyn Steinz August 12, 2020 Abstract The scientific community assigns credit or “priority” to individuals who publish an important discovery first. We examine the impact of losing a priority race (colloquially known as getting “scooped”) on subsequent publication and career outcomes. To do so, we take advantage of data from structural biology where the nature of the scientific process together with the Protein Data Bank — a repository of standardized research discoveries — enables us to identify priority races and their outcomes. We find that race winners receive more attention than losers, but that these contests are not winner-take-all. Scooped teams are 2.5 percent less likely to publish, are 18 percent less likely to appear in a top-10 journal, and receive 20 percent fewer citations. As a share of total citations, we estimate that scooped papers receive a credit share of 45 percent. This is larger than the theoretical benchmark of zero percent suggested by classic models of innovation races. We conduct a survey of structural biologists which suggests that active scientists are more pessimistic about the cost of getting scooped than can be justified by the data. Much of the citation effect can be explained by journal placement, suggesting editors and reviewers are key arbiters of academic priority. Getting scooped has only modest effects on academic careers. Finally, we present a simple model of statistical discrimination in academic attention to explain how the priority reward system reinforces inequality in science, and document empirical evidence consistent with our model.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Pck) for Teaching Macroevolution on Student Outcomes in a General Education Biology Course
    THE INFLUENCE OF PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (PCK) FOR TEACHING MACROEVOLUTION ON STUDENT OUTCOMES IN A GENERAL EDUCATION BIOLOGY COURSE A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by EMILY MARIE WALTER Dr. Patricia J. Friedrichsen, Dissertation Supervisor MAY 2013 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, Have examined the dissertation entitled THE INFLUENCE OF PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (PCK) FOR TEACHING MACROEVOLUTION ON STUDENT OUTCOMES IN A GENERAL EDUCATION BIOLOGY COURSE Presented by EMILY MARIE WALTER A candidate for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF LEARNING, TEACHING AND CURRICULUM - EMPHASIS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. _______________________________________________________________ DR. PATRICIA J. FRIEDRICHSEN, CHAIR _______________________________________________________________ DR. LLOYD BARROW _______________________________________________________________ DR. DEBORAH HANUSCIN _______________________________________________________________ DR. DAVID BERGIN _______________________________________________________________ DR. GERALD SUMMERS DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my daughters Lily and Charlotte and to my husband Clint. Your love, patience, humor, and bear hugs have been wonderful support for me throughout my doctorate program. I am grateful to share this achievement with you. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is a result of five years of work in the MU Science Education Center. Throughout that time, many people have challenged and supported my thinking. I take the following pages to acknowledge these individuals. Pat Friedrichsen, my advisor. Thank you for believing in me. You never once told me I might not graduate on time. This meant a lot to me, especially in moments of frustration and exhaustion.
    [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]
  • Scientific Misconceptions Among Daubert Gatekeepers: the Need for Reform of Expert Review Procedures
    BEYEA_FMT.DOC 04/23/01 11:45 AM SCIENTIFIC MISCONCEPTIONS AMONG DAUBERT GATEKEEPERS: THE NEED FOR REFORM OF EXPERT REVIEW PROCEDURES JAN BEYEA* AND DANIEL BERGER** I INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court’s opinions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.1, General Electric Company v. Joiner2, and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael3 con- tain two inconsistent views of science. In some places, the Court views science as an imperfect “process” for refining theories, whereas in other places, the Court views science as universal knowledge derived through “formal logic.” The latter view, long out of favor with philosophers and historians of science, comports with the current cultural vision of science and is likely to be adopted by district and appeals court judges, without vigorous “education,” or until such time as higher courts recognize that the two views need to be synthesized into a Copyright © 2001 by Jan Beyea and Daniel Berger This article is also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/64LCPBeyea. * Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Consulting in the Public Interest, Lambertville, New Jersey. Dr. Beyea is a regular panel member and reviewer of studies carried out by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. He can be contacted at [email protected]. ** Member, Berger & Montague, P.C., a firm that specializes in complex litigation and is a leader in the field of class actions, including toxic tort litigation. We thank Jim Cook for helping us gather statistics on Daubert decisions and Debora Fliegel- man for assistance with editing. 1. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In Daubert, the Court displaced the so-called Frye test of general accept- ability as the guideline for the admission of expert scientific witnesses.
    [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]
  • Survey of Research Integrity Measures Utilized in Biomedical Research Laboratories
    SURVEY OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY MEASURES UTILIZED IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES LITERATURE REVIEW Prepared by: C. Mulqueen D. Rodbard American Institutes for Research 3333 K Street, NW Washington, DC20007 October 31, 2000 Prepared for: Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity 5515 Security Lane Rockville, MD 20852 and Program Support Center Division of Acquisitions Management, AOS General Acquisitions Branch Room 5-101, Parklawn Building 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 Contract No. 282-98-0029 - Task Order No. 25 Survey of Research Integrity Measures Utilized in Biomedical Research Laboratories Table of Contents 1. Overview of Report..................................................................................................... 1 2. Search Methods Utilized ............................................................................................. 1 3. Content Areas.............................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Data Fabrication .............................................................................................. 3 3.2 Data Falsification ............................................................................................ 4 3.3 Plagiarism........................................................................................................ 4 3.4 Data Management............................................................................................ 5 3.5 Supervision and Mentoring ............................................................................
    [Show full text]