Academia @mander.xyz fossilesque @mander.xyz 1y ago

There’s far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit | Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus

www.theguardian.com There’s far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit | Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus

Despite recent scandals of research misconduct and error, the academic world still seems determined to look the other way

10 comments

https://pubpeer.com/ mentionned in the article is an interesting website that I will check out. However, peer review is supposed to be done by experts so I’m not sure how this website ensure that :).

I also found https://openreview.net/about interesting as a concept. Although it is a bit nerve wracking to have reviews public.
- IMO open review is the way to go. Having reviews public goes a long long way towards auditing how trustworthy a process is and one of the main sources of trust in Open Source software.
  
  It can be really nerve wracking having your work ventilated in public, but you get used to it. I also think it encourages more polite reviews in some people, as their interactions are also on public display.
  
  There are a few famous developers who used to completely brow-beat people that have publicly started talking about how they are taking feedback to heart about moderating that and I don't think that would have happened if they had only been giving feedback in private.
  
  Most early career people will not be willing to have their names publicized alongside their referee reports, because that will be too much risk for their career advancement. And let's face it, most referees are early career just by the sheer amount of papers out there to review.
I don’t doubt it. I’ve published dozens of papers and no peer reviewer has ever scrutinized one thoroughly enough that they would have caught me if I was faking something.

Academic integrity is probably 75% honor system, which, when met with ridiculous incentives to publish, isn’t a great system.

10 comments