Microb&Co Workshop 7ICME, October 2016,
Catania October 2016 Talk 1
How research misconduct happens and how it can be prevented. The roles of universities, journals and funders
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
In academia, the pressure to publish is high and the competition intense. This can lead authors to follow unethical publication practices, such as salami slicing, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission. This slide deck explains these malpractices and shares tips on how authors can avoid them.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
In academia, the pressure to publish is high and the competition intense. This can lead authors to follow unethical publication practices, such as salami slicing, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission. This slide deck explains these malpractices and shares tips on how authors can avoid them.
CONTENTS :
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPARENCY
PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
RESPONSIBLE PUBLICATION PRACTICES
OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
Selective Reporting and Misrepresentation of DataSaptarshi Ghosh
Research integrity means conducting research according to the highest professional and ethical standards, so that the results are trustworthy.
It concerns the behavior of researchers at all stages of the research life-cycle, including declaring competing interests; data collection and data management; using appropriate methodology; drawing conclusions from results; and writing up research findings.
One of the most important research ethical issues that should be taken into consideration is “scientific misconduct” such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Plagiarism can occur at any stage of the research activities such as reporting, communicating, authoring, and peer review. The purpose of this workshop is to engage researchers in their responsibility to conduct an ethical research.
Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity.pptxsheelu57
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:
Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. practices.
For individuals, research integrity is an aspect of moral character and experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct.
Predatory Publications and Software Tools for IdentificationSaptarshi Ghosh
Journals that publish work without proper peer review and which charge scholars sometimes huge fees to submit should not be allowed to share space with legitimate journals and publishers, whether open access or not. These journals and publishers cheapen intellectual work by misleading scholars, preying particularly early career researchers trying to gain an edge. The credibility of scholars duped into publishing in these journals can be seriously damaged by doing so. It is important that as a scholarly community we help to protect each other from being taken advantage of in this way.
Impact Factor Journals as per JCR, SNIP, SJR, IPP, CiteScoreSaptarshi Ghosh
Journal-level metrics
Metrics have become a fact of life in many - if not all - fields of research and scholarship. In an age of information abundance (often termed ‘information overload’), having a shorthand for the signals for where in the ocean of published literature to focus our limited attention has become increasingly important.
Research metrics are sometimes controversial, especially when in popular usage they become proxies for multidimensional concepts such as research quality or impact. Each metric may offer a different emphasis based on its underlying data source, method of calculation, or context of use. For this reason, Elsevier promotes the responsible use of research metrics encapsulated in two “golden rules”. Those are: always use both qualitative and quantitative input for decisions (i.e. expert opinion alongside metrics), and always use more than one research metric as the quantitative input. This second rule acknowledges that performance cannot be expressed by any single metric, as well as the fact that all metrics have specific strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, using multiple complementary metrics can help to provide a more complete picture and reflect different aspects of research productivity and impact in the final assessment. ( Elsevier)
The involvement of multiple individuals in different capacities naturally evokes the question of who should be credited and held accountable for the research published, especially since careers, ethics, and scientific integrity are at stake. This article outlines the major concepts pertaining to authorship.
In the race to publish more papers, some researchers indulge in unethical practices, one of which is salami slicing. Salami slicing means fragmenting one study and publishing it in multiple papers. This practice is considered improper and can affect your career, besides being damaging to science. This SlideShare explains in detail what salami slicing is and why it is considered unethical. It also includes opinions of journal editors on the issue.
CEPLAS Cologne June 2017: Research misconduct; science‘s self administered ...Leonid Schneider
Workshop presentation at International CEPLAS Summer School 2017 – „Emerging Frontiers in Plant Sciences“ June 5th – 9th, 2017 Sportschule Hennef, Germany
CONTENTS :
INTRODUCTION
TRANSPARENCY
PROMOTING RESEARCH INTEGRITY
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
RESPONSIBLE PUBLICATION PRACTICES
OWNERSHIP OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
Selective Reporting and Misrepresentation of DataSaptarshi Ghosh
Research integrity means conducting research according to the highest professional and ethical standards, so that the results are trustworthy.
It concerns the behavior of researchers at all stages of the research life-cycle, including declaring competing interests; data collection and data management; using appropriate methodology; drawing conclusions from results; and writing up research findings.
One of the most important research ethical issues that should be taken into consideration is “scientific misconduct” such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Plagiarism can occur at any stage of the research activities such as reporting, communicating, authoring, and peer review. The purpose of this workshop is to engage researchers in their responsibility to conduct an ethical research.
Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity.pptxsheelu57
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:
Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. practices.
For individuals, research integrity is an aspect of moral character and experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct.
Predatory Publications and Software Tools for IdentificationSaptarshi Ghosh
Journals that publish work without proper peer review and which charge scholars sometimes huge fees to submit should not be allowed to share space with legitimate journals and publishers, whether open access or not. These journals and publishers cheapen intellectual work by misleading scholars, preying particularly early career researchers trying to gain an edge. The credibility of scholars duped into publishing in these journals can be seriously damaged by doing so. It is important that as a scholarly community we help to protect each other from being taken advantage of in this way.
Impact Factor Journals as per JCR, SNIP, SJR, IPP, CiteScoreSaptarshi Ghosh
Journal-level metrics
Metrics have become a fact of life in many - if not all - fields of research and scholarship. In an age of information abundance (often termed ‘information overload’), having a shorthand for the signals for where in the ocean of published literature to focus our limited attention has become increasingly important.
Research metrics are sometimes controversial, especially when in popular usage they become proxies for multidimensional concepts such as research quality or impact. Each metric may offer a different emphasis based on its underlying data source, method of calculation, or context of use. For this reason, Elsevier promotes the responsible use of research metrics encapsulated in two “golden rules”. Those are: always use both qualitative and quantitative input for decisions (i.e. expert opinion alongside metrics), and always use more than one research metric as the quantitative input. This second rule acknowledges that performance cannot be expressed by any single metric, as well as the fact that all metrics have specific strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, using multiple complementary metrics can help to provide a more complete picture and reflect different aspects of research productivity and impact in the final assessment. ( Elsevier)
The involvement of multiple individuals in different capacities naturally evokes the question of who should be credited and held accountable for the research published, especially since careers, ethics, and scientific integrity are at stake. This article outlines the major concepts pertaining to authorship.
In the race to publish more papers, some researchers indulge in unethical practices, one of which is salami slicing. Salami slicing means fragmenting one study and publishing it in multiple papers. This practice is considered improper and can affect your career, besides being damaging to science. This SlideShare explains in detail what salami slicing is and why it is considered unethical. It also includes opinions of journal editors on the issue.
CEPLAS Cologne June 2017: Research misconduct; science‘s self administered ...Leonid Schneider
Workshop presentation at International CEPLAS Summer School 2017 – „Emerging Frontiers in Plant Sciences“ June 5th – 9th, 2017 Sportschule Hennef, Germany
Talk 2 at Research Integrity workshop at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, April 6th 2018
http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/events/13302/4358571
This lecture talks about the importance of evidence in scientific, business, and innovation research. It lists down important examples to carry this process in perspective of the problem statement.
Dismissive Reviews, Citation Cartels, and the Replication Crisis.pptxRichard P Phelps
This interdisciplinary theme of the Conference addresses two of the very serious and controversial challenges of modern-day research, namely dismissive reviews (unsupported declarations of scholars declaring no previous research exists on certain topics, despite evidence of the contrary) and „citation cartels” (groups of scholars who agree to cite each others’ work and none of the other available literature). These practices have a considerable impact in the quality and ethical
aspects of research, and are also reflected in the replicability crisis.
Lecture on research integrity at Natural Sciences faculty, University of South Bohemia at Ceske Budejovice, Czechia, 11 December 2023
https://www.prf.jcu.cz/cz/fakulta/aktualne/prednaska-lecture-defenestration-of-science-fraud
Trachea transplanters without borders, Liverpool, June 2018Leonid Schneider
Seminar at Research integrity event on research integrity, organised by Patricia Murray at University of LIverpool.
Story of deadly regenerative medicine and trachea transplants of Paolo Macchiarini and Martin Birchall
Liverpool, 1.06.2018
Research misconduct in plant science: infectious and toxic (Cologne 6.4.2018)Leonid Schneider
Talk 1 at Research Integrity workshop at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, April 6th 2018
http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/events/13302/4358571
On research ethics, regenerative medicine hype and Paolo Macchiarini’s dead p...Leonid Schneider
Seminar on research integrity and ethics of human experiments, presented at the University of Milan (26.09.2017) and University of Insubria, Varese (27.09.2017).
Video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrKk-IDp0hM&feature=youtu.be
Liverpool, May 23rd 2017. The Paolo Macchiarini scandal: from bad stem cell science to bad regenerative medicine to dead patients
Audio recording and video of this talk (with slides) here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwtuWP33AJw
This is a slightly modified version of my earlier presentation form the research integrity workshop in Catania, Italy, October 2016. An image, copyrighted by University College Cork, was contested for copyright by their professor Max Dow, who pushed through a DMCA takedown action. You will sure appreciate what I replaced that image with ;-)
Remote Sensing and Computational, Evolutionary, Supercomputing, and Intellige...University of Maribor
Slides from talk:
Aleš Zamuda: Remote Sensing and Computational, Evolutionary, Supercomputing, and Intelligent Systems.
11th International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (IcETRAN), Niš, 3-6 June 2024
Inter-Society Networking Panel GRSS/MTT-S/CIS Panel Session: Promoting Connection and Cooperation
https://www.etran.rs/2024/en/home-english/
Richard's aventures in two entangled wonderlandsRichard Gill
Since the loophole-free Bell experiments of 2020 and the Nobel prizes in physics of 2022, critics of Bell's work have retreated to the fortress of super-determinism. Now, super-determinism is a derogatory word - it just means "determinism". Palmer, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that quantum mechanics and determinism are not incompatible, using a sophisticated mathematical construction based on a subtle thinning of allowed states and measurements in quantum mechanics, such that what is left appears to make Bell's argument fail, without altering the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. I think however that it is a smoke screen, and the slogan "lost in math" comes to my mind. I will discuss some other recent disproofs of Bell's theorem using the language of causality based on causal graphs. Causal thinking is also central to law and justice. I will mention surprising connections to my work on serial killer nurse cases, in particular the Dutch case of Lucia de Berk and the current UK case of Lucy Letby.
ANAMOLOUS SECONDARY GROWTH IN DICOT ROOTS.pptxRASHMI M G
Abnormal or anomalous secondary growth in plants. It defines secondary growth as an increase in plant girth due to vascular cambium or cork cambium. Anomalous secondary growth does not follow the normal pattern of a single vascular cambium producing xylem internally and phloem externally.
ESR spectroscopy in liquid food and beverages.pptxPRIYANKA PATEL
With increasing population, people need to rely on packaged food stuffs. Packaging of food materials requires the preservation of food. There are various methods for the treatment of food to preserve them and irradiation treatment of food is one of them. It is the most common and the most harmless method for the food preservation as it does not alter the necessary micronutrients of food materials. Although irradiated food doesn’t cause any harm to the human health but still the quality assessment of food is required to provide consumers with necessary information about the food. ESR spectroscopy is the most sophisticated way to investigate the quality of the food and the free radicals induced during the processing of the food. ESR spin trapping technique is useful for the detection of highly unstable radicals in the food. The antioxidant capability of liquid food and beverages in mainly performed by spin trapping technique.
What is greenhouse gasses and how many gasses are there to affect the Earth.moosaasad1975
What are greenhouse gasses how they affect the earth and its environment what is the future of the environment and earth how the weather and the climate effects.
Nucleophilic Addition of carbonyl compounds.pptxSSR02
Nucleophilic addition is the most important reaction of carbonyls. Not just aldehydes and ketones, but also carboxylic acid derivatives in general.
Carbonyls undergo addition reactions with a large range of nucleophiles.
Comparing the relative basicity of the nucleophile and the product is extremely helpful in determining how reversible the addition reaction is. Reactions with Grignards and hydrides are irreversible. Reactions with weak bases like halides and carboxylates generally don’t happen.
Electronic effects (inductive effects, electron donation) have a large impact on reactivity.
Large groups adjacent to the carbonyl will slow the rate of reaction.
Neutral nucleophiles can also add to carbonyls, although their additions are generally slower and more reversible. Acid catalysis is sometimes employed to increase the rate of addition.
Travis Hills' Endeavors in Minnesota: Fostering Environmental and Economic Pr...Travis Hills MN
Travis Hills of Minnesota developed a method to convert waste into high-value dry fertilizer, significantly enriching soil quality. By providing farmers with a valuable resource derived from waste, Travis Hills helps enhance farm profitability while promoting environmental stewardship. Travis Hills' sustainable practices lead to cost savings and increased revenue for farmers by improving resource efficiency and reducing waste.
hematic appreciation test is a psychological assessment tool used to measure an individual's appreciation and understanding of specific themes or topics. This test helps to evaluate an individual's ability to connect different ideas and concepts within a given theme, as well as their overall comprehension and interpretation skills. The results of the test can provide valuable insights into an individual's cognitive abilities, creativity, and critical thinking skills
Comparing Evolved Extractive Text Summary Scores of Bidirectional Encoder Rep...University of Maribor
Slides from:
11th International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (IcETRAN), Niš, 3-6 June 2024
Track: Artificial Intelligence
https://www.etran.rs/2024/en/home-english/
The use of Nauplii and metanauplii artemia in aquaculture (brine shrimp).pptxMAGOTI ERNEST
Although Artemia has been known to man for centuries, its use as a food for the culture of larval organisms apparently began only in the 1930s, when several investigators found that it made an excellent food for newly hatched fish larvae (Litvinenko et al., 2023). As aquaculture developed in the 1960s and ‘70s, the use of Artemia also became more widespread, due both to its convenience and to its nutritional value for larval organisms (Arenas-Pardo et al., 2024). The fact that Artemia dormant cysts can be stored for long periods in cans, and then used as an off-the-shelf food requiring only 24 h of incubation makes them the most convenient, least labor-intensive, live food available for aquaculture (Sorgeloos & Roubach, 2021). The nutritional value of Artemia, especially for marine organisms, is not constant, but varies both geographically and temporally. During the last decade, however, both the causes of Artemia nutritional variability and methods to improve poorquality Artemia have been identified (Loufi et al., 2024).
Brine shrimp (Artemia spp.) are used in marine aquaculture worldwide. Annually, more than 2,000 metric tons of dry cysts are used for cultivation of fish, crustacean, and shellfish larva. Brine shrimp are important to aquaculture because newly hatched brine shrimp nauplii (larvae) provide a food source for many fish fry (Mozanzadeh et al., 2021). Culture and harvesting of brine shrimp eggs represents another aspect of the aquaculture industry. Nauplii and metanauplii of Artemia, commonly known as brine shrimp, play a crucial role in aquaculture due to their nutritional value and suitability as live feed for many aquatic species, particularly in larval stages (Sorgeloos & Roubach, 2021).
BREEDING METHODS FOR DISEASE RESISTANCE.pptxRASHMI M G
Plant breeding for disease resistance is a strategy to reduce crop losses caused by disease. Plants have an innate immune system that allows them to recognize pathogens and provide resistance. However, breeding for long-lasting resistance often involves combining multiple resistance genes
DERIVATION OF MODIFIED BERNOULLI EQUATION WITH VISCOUS EFFECTS AND TERMINAL V...Wasswaderrick3
In this book, we use conservation of energy techniques on a fluid element to derive the Modified Bernoulli equation of flow with viscous or friction effects. We derive the general equation of flow/ velocity and then from this we derive the Pouiselle flow equation, the transition flow equation and the turbulent flow equation. In the situations where there are no viscous effects , the equation reduces to the Bernoulli equation. From experimental results, we are able to include other terms in the Bernoulli equation. We also look at cases where pressure gradients exist. We use the Modified Bernoulli equation to derive equations of flow rate for pipes of different cross sectional areas connected together. We also extend our techniques of energy conservation to a sphere falling in a viscous medium under the effect of gravity. We demonstrate Stokes equation of terminal velocity and turbulent flow equation. We look at a way of calculating the time taken for a body to fall in a viscous medium. We also look at the general equation of terminal velocity.
Nutraceutical market, scope and growth: Herbal drug technologyLokesh Patil
As consumer awareness of health and wellness rises, the nutraceutical market—which includes goods like functional meals, drinks, and dietary supplements that provide health advantages beyond basic nutrition—is growing significantly. As healthcare expenses rise, the population ages, and people want natural and preventative health solutions more and more, this industry is increasing quickly. Further driving market expansion are product formulation innovations and the use of cutting-edge technology for customized nutrition. With its worldwide reach, the nutraceutical industry is expected to keep growing and provide significant chances for research and investment in a number of categories, including vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and herbal supplements.
6. Plagiarism: the art of theft
• Re-using text written by others without proper
acknowledgments is plagiarism and misconduct
• Never present thoughts of others as your own
• It’s not enough just to cite their paper. If you need to
copy others’ text: always use quotation marks, and
give reference.
• Many journals screen for plagiarism using software
• There is no such thing as unintentional plagiarism
7. Boosting paper output:
self-plagiarism and salami-publishing
• If you re-use your own text (self-plagiarism), you
cheat readers about originality of your thoughts
• If you feel the need to re-use blocks of text: your story
lacks originality!
• Repeating old experiments in slightly modified
conditions? Where is originality in this?
• Re-use of own published data with a slightly modified
focus is salami-publishing
• Self-plagiarism and salami-publishing are commonly
used and often condoned tools of dishonest CV doping
9. Journals and funding agencies prefer
simplistic, but sensationalist “breakthrough” science
• Stem cells! Regenerative medicine! Organs from lab!
• Cancer cure!
• One-Gene-Phenotype models (Gene for autism! Gene for
schizophrenia! Gene for homosexuality!)
• Microbiome causes autism or schizophrenia or homosexuality!
• Translational/Commercial potential
11. Junior scientists are often told by their advisors:
- If you can deliver this result,
you will publish a nice paper and have a job
- If you don’t deliver this result,
you will not publish any paper and have no job
Dangerous confirmation bias:
- repeating experiment to be sure of its result’s reproducibility
is not the same as
- repeating it until the result finally fits the “expected” one
Getting there…
12. Why do scientists manipulate data?
• Motivation: to prove a pre-
conceived theory against lack
of experimental evidence
• Outcome: irreproducible
findings, pollution of scientific
literature, suffocation of
correct theories, usurpation
of a research field
• When caught: fraud scandal
and collapse of a research
field
13. Why do scientists manipulate data?
• Motivation: To scoop a
competitor lab on an
unpublished discovery they
made
• Outcome: dishonestly
acquired fame, funding and
domination of a research
field
• When caught: a careless
visionary genius, since
findings still reproducible!
14. Scientists occasionally help data to fit their
theoretical model for a publication
• Selective data acquisition, omission of critical controls
(very common)
• “Adjustments” or manipulation of data
(less common)
• Data falsification / fraud
(very rare)
15. 1. Selective data acquisition, omission of critical controls
• Cherry-picking
- discard odd samples/data which “spoil” the theory
- declare technically perfectly fine experiments as
failed if result doesn’t “fit”
• Control avoidance
- You know which control experiments would test
your theory, but you prefer not to do those
16. 2. “Adjustments” or manipulation of data
• Heavy cherry-picking
- selective deletion of entire sets of “outliers”
• Triplicating
- turning one single experiment into a triplicate
• p-hacking -
- statistics trickery to obtain significance. Most
published p-values are mysteriously just below 0.05!
• Loading controls
- gel loading controls libraries
- loading control swapping between gels
- other trickery to pretend equal gel or PCR loading
17. 3. Data falsification / fraud
• Falsification
- you think you got the experimental result right, but
just don’t have the “perfect” figure for the paper.
So you falsify one with Photoshop.
• Fraud
- you think biology is too stupid and incompetent to
follow your grand reasoning.
So you fake data against all experimental evidence to
get your theory published
18. Scientists waste time, money and their careers trying to
reproduce unreliable or manipulated results
• Poor reproducibility in combination with high competition
undermines productivity, work moral, trust and motivation
• It leads to even more data manipulation and fraud in science
19. Peer review weeds out bad science. Really?
• Data is submitted on trust as
being honest/reliable
• Peer Reviewers are scientist
colleagues, not data integrity
specialists
• Peer Reviewers only analyse
science, not its data integrity
• Peer review is not always done
diligently enough
How did this pass
peer review????
21. - Journal Editors
- Decide on Quality,
Novelty, Impact
- Appoint peer
reviewers
- Make final decisions
- Peer Reviewers
- 1-4 people
- Unknown to authors
or readers
- Potential COI,
personal animosities,
lack of competence…
$$$
Too many financial and personal interests involved
Years and years of research…
23. A peer-reviewed paper is a badge of honour
• Publications are public evidence of success
• Passing peer review is a seal of scientific trustworthiness
• Often not the content counts, but where it is published (i.e,
alleged peer review quality)
• Publicly critiquing papers is seen as rude and damaging to
science
24. Individual decency in an indecent system
• Dealing with misconduct: more complicated than it sounds
• Best intentions vs the “Realpolitik” of academia
25. Climate of fear and coalition of silence
• Science is simultaneously cooperative and competitive
• Scientists’ top concern is funding, which requires collaboration
even with worst fraudsters
• Because of this, scientists rarely dispute each other publicly
• Instead, dark channels are used to damage competitors and
rare critics
$$$
26. What do you do if you spot data irregularities or
irreproducibility in a published paper?
1. Write to authors
2. Write to journal
3. Write to authors’
institution
27. Passing the buck
• Journals lack investigative authority
• Journals cannot screen lab books or interview lab members
• Journals are afraid to scare away authors
• Occasionally, institutions pass responsibility to journals anyway
28. Your paper is wrong,
professor!
See you at the
exam…
Individual criticisms are unwelcome and dangerous
• Funding concerns sabotage institutional
investigations
• Institutions often refuse to react to
anonymous hints
• Whistle-blowers are often threatened,
punished or disregarded as malicious
29. What happens if a published paper is reported
to be wrong or even to contain manipulated data?
1. Correction (rare)
2. Retraction (even rarer)
3. Nothing (most common)