• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Can We Still Trust Science?
 

Can We Still Trust Science?

on

  • 1,889 views

WCSJ 2013 presentation, Helsinki. Update of various presentations on scientific misconduct and retractions.

WCSJ 2013 presentation, Helsinki. Update of various presentations on scientific misconduct and retractions.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,889
Views on SlideShare
1,469
Embed Views
420

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

6 Embeds 420

http://www.scidev.net 248
https://twitter.com 96
http://m.scidev.net 69
http://sci016.staging.tun.pixl8-hosting.co.uk 4
http://nodea.scidev.net 2
https://web.tweetdeck.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Can We Still Trust Science? Can We Still Trust Science? Presentation Transcript

    • Can We Still Trust Science?World Conference of Science JournalistsHelsinkiJune 26, 2013Ivan OranskyExecutive Editor, Reuters HealthCo-founder, Retraction Watchhttp://retractionwatch.com@ivanoransky
    • Is This Science Today?
    • This is Transparency?
    • This is Transparency?Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), thereason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“significant originality issue”
    • The Euphemisms“unattributed overlap”an “approach”“a duplicate of a paper that has already beenpublished”…by other authors“significant originality issue”“Some sentences…are directly taken from otherpapers, which could be viewed as a form ofplagiarism”
    • How Often Are Studies Wrong?
    • How Often Are Studies Wrong?Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124
    • We Are All Gatekeepers:hESCs in Cell
    • hESCs in Cell
    • “It does however have several examples of imagereuse which might be of interest to PubPeermembers and readers.”hESCs in Cell
    • hESCs in Cell
    • hESCs in Cell
    • hESCs in CellA number of comments about these errors inarticles and blogs have drawn connections to thespeed of the peer review process for this paper.Given the broad interest, importance, anticipatedscrutiny of the claims of the paper and thepreeminence of the reviewers, we have no reasonto doubt the thoroughness or rigor of the reviewprocess.
    • hESCs in CellThe comparatively rapid turnaround for this papercan be attributed to the fact that the reviewersgraciously agreed to prioritize attention to reviewingthis paper in a timely way. It is a misrepresentationto equate slow peer review with thoroughness orrigor or to use timely peer review as a justificationfor sloppiness in manuscript preparation.
    • Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Uphttp://www.labtimes.org
    • Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/
    • Blogs Get Aggressive
    • Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com
    • Blogs Get Aggressivehttp://www.science-fraud.org/
    • Journals Are Listening
    • Journals Are Listening
    • Scientists Are Concerned, Too
    • Contact Infoivan-oransky@erols.comhttp://retractionwatch.com@ivanoranskyThanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters HealthRobert Lee Hotz, Wall Street Journal