DOCSLIB.ORG

Promouvoir Et Protéger Une Culture Partagée De L'intégrité Scientifique

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ............................................................................................... 13 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 15 I. LES SOURCES ENCADRANT LES PRINCIPES DE L’INTEGRITE SCIENTIFIQUE ............................................................................................. 24 1. La coopération européenne en faveur de l’intégrité scientifique ........................ 25 a. La « Charte européenne du chercheur. Code de conduite pour le recrutement des chercheurs » (C&C) (Commission européenne, 2005) ....................................... 25 b. Le « Code de conduite européen pour l’intégrité de la recherche » ou « European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity » (European Science Foundation & All European Academies, 2011 et révision en 2017) ............................................... 26 c. Le « Guide ENRIO. Recommandations pour l’investigation des méconduites en recherche », ou « ENRIO Handbook : Recommandations for the Investigations of Research Misconduct » (ENRIO, 2019) ......................................................... 27 d. La Déclaration de Bonn, « The Freedom of Scientific Research » (2020) .......... 28 2. L’appréhension internationale sous l’égide des pays membres de l’OCDE ....... 29 a. Frédéric Sgard & Stefan Michalowski, « Intégrité scientifique : vers l’élaboration de politiques cohérentes » (Forum mondial de la science de l’OCDE, 2007) .... 29 b. La Déclaration de Singapour sur l’intégrité en recherche ou « Singapore Statement on Research Integrity » (septembre 2010) ......................................... 30 c. Le Manifeste de Hong Kong, ou « The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity » (septembre 2017) ......................... 31 3. La construction d’un corpus national .................................................................. 32 a. Le rapport de Jean-Pierre Alix, « Renforcer l’intégrité de la recherche en France. Propositions de prévention et de traitement de la fraude scientifique » (septembre 2010) ................................................................................................ 32 b. La « Charte nationale de déontologie des métiers de la recherche » (janvier 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 33 c. Le rapport de Pierre Corvol, « Bilan et propositions de mise en œuvre de la charte d’intégrité scientifique » (juin 2016) .................................................................. 35 — 6 — d. La circulaire du 15 mars 2017 du secrétaire d’État Thierry Mandon, chargé de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche (mars 2017)................................... 39 e. Le « Vade-mecum intégrité scientifique » (Groupe de travail Corvol, mars 2017) ............................................................................................................................ 40 f. Le guide « Pratiquer une recherche intègre et responsable » (Comité d’éthique du CNRS – COMETS, mars 2017).......................................................................... 40 g. Le « Guide pour le recueil et le traitement des signalements relatifs à l’IS » (ResInt, 2018) ..................................................................................................... 41 h. La « Charte de déontologie et d’intégrité scientifique de l’Agence nationale de la recherche » (ANR, 2018) .................................................................................... 41 II. LES ACTEURS DE L’INTEGRITE SCIENTIFIQUE ...................................... 43 1. Des acteurs institutionnels au rôle limité ............................................................ 44 a. L’Office français de l’intégrité scientifique (OFIS) et le Conseil français de l’Intégrité scientifique (CoFIS) ........................................................................... 44 b. Le référent intégrité scientifique, représentant de l’intégrité scientifique ........... 50 2. Les réseaux informels des acteurs institutionnels ............................................... 56 a. La conférence des signataires de la charte de déontologie des métiers de la recherche ............................................................................................................. 56 3. Les acteurs non institutionnels de la régulation de la science ............................ 57 a. Le ResInt, réseau de mutualisation des référents intégrité scientifique ............... 58 b. PubPeer, journal club et plateforme de signalements .......................................... 58 c. Retraction Watch, base de données de rétractation d’articles .............................. 61 DEUXIEME PARTIE : APPREHENDER LES MECONDUITES SCIENTIFIQUES .................................................................................. 65 I. UNE NOMENCLATURE INTERNATIONALE ET COMMUNE DES MECONDUITES ............................................................................................ 65 1. Classement par domaines .................................................................................... 65 a. Les Fraudes scientifiques génériques ou « FFP » : fabrication, falsification, plagiat ................................................................................................................. 66 b. Les pratiques douteuses de recherche sur les données ........................................ 68 c. Les pratiques de recherche inappropriées ............................................................ 68 d. Les pratiques douteuses liées aux publications ................................................... 68 e. Les conflits d’intérêts ........................................................................................... 70 f. Autres pratiques douteuses de recherche.............................................................. 71 2. L’importance du critère d’intentionnalité ........................................................... 71 3. Classement par niveaux de gravité ..................................................................... 74 II. TRAITER LES CAS DE MECONDUITE SCIENTIFIQUE .............................. 76 1. Réception et recevabilité du signalement ........................................................... 78 2. Recevabilité du signalement : instruction ou rejet .............................................. 79 3. L’instruction à proprement parler ....................................................................... 79 — 7 — 4. La constitution d’une commission ou d’un comité d’instruction ....................... 81 5. Décision du dirigeant et droit du travail ............................................................. 82 6. La faculté de recours ouverte au chercheur incriminé ........................................ 84 7. La possibilité d’une réhabilitation du chercheur ................................................. 87 TROISIEME PARTIE : DEVELOPPER UNE “CULTURE PARTAGEE DE L’INTEGRITE SCIENTIFIQUE” ..................................................... 92 I. FORMER A L’INTEGRITE SCIENTIFIQUE : UN EFFORT TRANSGENERATIONNEL ........................................................................... 92 1. Former les doctorants .......................................................................................... 93 2. Former les chercheurs et les encadrants.............................................................. 96 3. Le conseil préventif............................................................................................. 97 4. Développer la recherche autour de l’intégrité scientifique ................................. 97 II. CREER ET SOUTENIR UN ENVIRONNEMENT DE RECHERCHE FAVORABLE A L’INTEGRITE SCIENTIFIQUE ......................................... 100 QUATRIEME PARTIE : LES
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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]