The Decameron of poor research

Vance W Berger,John P A Ioannidis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1436

2004-12-18

BMJ

Abstract:Most gracious readers, two boring researchers present a series of pitiful tales—covert and overt fraud, petty misdeeds, and misconceptions by honest and not so honest researchers, professors, industry sponsors, bureaucrats, and other legendary adventurers of modern science

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The figure of the doctor and the science of medicine through Boccaccio's "Decameron"

Maria Sgouridou

Abstract:In the person of Boccaccio the humanism of Florence found its major representative. In 1358 he completed his great work, The Decameron, begun some ten years earlier. Considered the prelude to the new spirit that was to be manifested by the Renaissance, it was written in the spirit of a human-centred era. In the tales of The Decameron, based on events occurring during the plague at Florence of 1348, Boccaccio provides a detailed outline of how medical events were viewed at a time of transition from the Middle Ages to the new age of change. The Decameron opens with a description of the Bubonic Plague (Black Death). Boccaccio knows that it started in the East, and attributes it either to the influence of heavenly bodies or to God's anger over the wicked deeds of men. But the symptoms of the plague are not like those in the East, where he has heard that a sudden gush of blood from the nose is a sure sign of impending death. Instead, there are swellings, the buboes, in the groin and under the armpit, growing to the size of a small apple or an egg, then large purple or black spots on other parts of the body, and death soon afterwards. This leads to the story of a group of seven young women and three young men who fled from plague-ridden Florence to a villa outside the city walls. To pass the time, they organized themselves so that each person at night has to amuse the others by telling a story. The stories, told over ten days, contain dramatic and or humorous, elements, and many refer in one way or another to the way illness was conceived and managed in those times.
Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

Eduardo Garcia-Garzon,Ariadna Angulo-Brunet,Oscar Lecuona,Juan Ramón Barrada,Guido Corradi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6

IF: 2.8

2022-02-28

Current Psychology

Abstract:Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers’ research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others’ colleagues’ research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs’ definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science.

psychology, multidisciplinary
When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media

Ilaria Ampollini,Massimiano Bucchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00103-5

Abstract:Most studies of research integrity in the general media focus on the coverage of specific cases of misconduct. This paper tries to provide a more general, long-term perspective by analysing media discourse about research integrity and related themes in the Italian and United Kingdom daily press from 2000 to 2016. The results, based on a corpus of 853 articles, show that media coverage largely mirrors debates about integrity and misconduct. In fact, salient themes in the news include the importance to overcome the so-called "rotten apple" paradigm; the key role of public trust in science; and the need to address flaws in the peer-review system.
Four decades of counterfeit research: A bibliometric analysis

Irfan Butt,Maha Khamis Al Balushi,Seung Hwan Lee,Myuri Mohan,Naseer Ahmad Khan,Shelley Haines,Seung Hwan (Mark) Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2284814

2023-11-27

Cogent Business & Management

Abstract:This paper assesses the evolution of last 43 years in counterfeit research with respect to sources of knowledge (i.e. journals, authors, institutions, countries) and research themes. The oldest paper on this subject discovered in the Scopus database was published 43 years ago, yet a time frame was not specified. Sources of knowledge are assessed on research productivity (quantitative) as well as impact (qualitative). Research themes, key areas of focus within the counterfeit research landscape, are identified and discussed to conceptualize our understanding of the field. Via a systematic literature review, 713 peer-reviewed academic articles published in 282 journals from 1978 to 2021 were selected as the sample for this study. The systematic review technique was chosen as compared with narrative reviews of the literature it focuses on open, extensive, and detailed approaches to literature searches, in addition to conforming to the scientific criteria utilised in primary research, namely transparency, rigour, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. A database of references and citations was created for analysis. The data was analyzed to prepare comparative tables. Further, the Leximancer software was used to generate lexical conceptual trends. This data was further analyzed to identify emerging themes. The Journal of Business Ethics had the highest number of articles and citations, followed by the Journal of Business Research and Business Horizons. Ian Phau (14 articles) and Michael D. Smith, (9 articles) were the most prolific authors. Joseph Nunes and Ian Phau attained the highest number of citations, cited 658 and 577 times respectively. Eight major research themes were identified: products, piracy, model, price, firms, digital, supply, and ethical. Each theme was analyzed over time. The major research areas analyzed across the articles over time were Technology (particularly “Technology” and “Software” topics) and Ethics (particularly “IP” and “Legislation”). The identification of these research area captures the essence of the paper’s uniqueness and contribution to this field of research. This is the first systematic literature review in counterfeit literature that captures multi-decade sources of knowledge in business journals.
Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Alonzo Alfaro-Núñez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3

Abstract:Background: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. Main body: While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years. Conclusion: There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times.
Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

Ramón A. Feenstra,Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w

IF: 3.777

2021-01-25

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Scientific fraud: attack on the credibility of science

Lisset Urquiza Portilla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56294/mw202334

2023-12-31

Abstract:Introduction: When referring to the term fraud in scientific research, 3 fundamental modalities of this can be defined that are consistent with the search for studies that are not easily rejected: manipulating data, plagiarism and the creation of non-existent data.Objective: To describe factors that allow the detection of scientific fraud in research.Methods: A review of the literature was carried out in the month of December 2023 through access to the databases Scopus, PubMed, Dialnet, Scielo, and the search engine Google Scholar version 2022, with the strategies: ((fraud ) AND (scientific writing)), ((science) AND (plagiarism)) and ((medicine) AND (artificial intelligence) AND (scientific fraud) AND (plagiarism) AND (data invention)) and their translations into the English language , limited the search to the last 5 years –from 2019 to 2023–.Results: Together with the problem of predatory magazines, the terminology of hijacked magazines has emerged, it is nothing more than that which takes articles, steals names of editors, evaluators or proofreaders, and through its use, sells them to different websites. scientific studies for publication. In real and practical life this phenomenon occurs due to economic motivation.Conclusions: Fraud in the world of scientific communication ranges from the authors to the editorial committees of the journals, which is why both groups must be educated in 2 fundamental factors, not committing fraud and knowing how to detect it, in order to increase in terms of credibility of current science.
The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences by Jason A. Josephson-Storm

Dmitri Cerboncini Fernandes,Alexander Moreira-Almeida

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31275/20211959

2021-03-08

Journal of Scientific Exploration

Abstract:We live in a contradictory world. Self-proclaimed “skeptics”, as the original meaning itself suggests, should first of all strive for proper scientific rationality, for reflective and objective distancing in the apprehension of reality, for methodological caution and for the extended ability to theoretical and philosophical understanding of intricate problems, in practice, too often have entrenched themselves in dogmatic groups. Inquisitors often endowed with the appearance of religious fanaticism, in the worst sense of the term, invest their energies in a crusade of attacks to everyone to whom they attribute mistakes, naivety or even bad intentions. In practice, the universe of those who do not fit in their often restricted, idealized and naïve views of scientific practice. With them, there is hardly any possibility of frank dialogue or opening to research fields that escape their conceptions of what science and philosophy can approach and how they should operate. Charlatans, backward, believers, superstitious; these are some disqualifications generally granted to researchers who dare to go beyond the limits they established for science and rationality. To substantiate their certainties, such self-proclaimed skeptics often claim to base their approach to science on the examples given by highly regarded scientists and philosophers of the past. We speak here of scholars of the stature of Giordano Bruno, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, the Encyclopedists, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, Sigmund Freud, James Frazer, the Vienna Circle, Max Weber, etc. Despite their different approaches, we are talking about many of the very founders of modern Western knowledge. The self-proclaimed contemporary “skeptics” claim their inscriptions in the tradition inaugurated by these illustrious intellectual ancestors. They claim to defend with determination such a rationalist tradition against “pseudoscientists” and “mystic-religious" philosophers who, according to their opinions, wish to corrupt it through insidious insertions in a field that would not rightfully belong to them. This would be their main mission.
Science Wars, Scientism, and Think Tanks

Massimo Pigliucci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/jch.39456

2020-11-06

Journal of Cognitive Historiography

Abstract:The present contribution offers a précis of the second edition of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk (Pigliucci 2018). The aim of the book is to explore the complex landscape populated by science, pseudoscience, and everything in between, what in philosophy is known as the “demarcation problem.” However, the author maintains that little progress can be done in public understanding and appreciation of science unless we also explore the historical, sociological and psychological motivations that lead people to believe in “nonsense on stilts.” Further, it is incumbent on scientists and science educators to act “virtuously” whenever dealing with pseudoscientific claims, an effort that may be greatly helped by the adoption of a virtue epistemological approach, analogous to virtue ethics in moral philosophy.

English Else
The Decretists and the “Deserving Poor”

Brian Tierney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0010417500000372

1959-06-01

Comparative Studies in Society and History

Abstract:In spite of all the complex controversies concerning the interplay of religious ideas and economic forces at the end of the Middle Ages the investigation of the pre-existing medieval poor law has been rather neglected by modern scholars. Evidently enough attitudes toward the relief of poverty are as significant as attitudes toward the acquisition of wealth in gauging the climate of economic thought in any given age. Yet, apart from studies on hospital administration, little has been done in this field of medieval research since the pioneering works of Ratzinger, Emminghaus, Ehrle, Uhlhorn and Ashley in the nineteenth century. Since then the attitudes of social welfare experts to the problems of poor relief have radically changed and a great mass of source material unknown to the earlier writers, notably the work of the medieval canonists, has come to the attention of historians. Both these facts suggest a need for some reconsideration of medieval attitudes to the poor and to the relief of poverty.

history,sociology,anthropology
Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Brian Owens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q659

2024-03-27

BMJ

Abstract:Frontiers, like other for-profit open access publishers, has struggled with a perception it has low editorial standards and weak peer review. But is that true? Brian Owens reports

medicine, general & internal
Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum

Abu Bakkar Siddique,Brian Shaw,Johanna Dwyer,David A Fields,Kevin Fontaine,David Hand,Randy Schekman,Jeffrey Alberts,Julie Locher,David B Allison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00517-w

2024-10-16

Abstract:The tutelage of our mentors as scientists included the analogy that writing a good scientific paper was an exercise in storytelling that omitted unessential details that did not move the story forward or that detracted from the overall message. However, the advice to not get lost in the details had an important flaw. In science, it is the many details of the data themselves and the methods used to generate and analyze them that give conclusions their probative meaning. Facts may sometimes slow or distract from the clarity, tidiness, intrigue, or flow of the narrative, but nevertheless they are important for the assessment of what was done, the trustworthiness of the science, and the meaning of the findings. Nevertheless, many critical elements and facts about research studies may be omitted from the narrative and become hidden from scholarly scrutiny. We describe a "baker's dozen" shortfalls in which such elements that are pertinent to evaluating the validity of scientific studies are sometimes hidden in reports of the work. Such shortfalls may be intentional or unintentional or lie somewhere in between. Additionally, shortfalls may occur at the level of the individual or an institution or of the entire system itself. We conclude by proposing countermeasures to these shortfalls.
Reputation, review, . . . and other stories

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2568

2022-11-04

The BMJ

Abstract:Biases of peer reviewAuthors' reputations have a strong influence on peer reviewers' recommendations, according to the results of an experiment in which 3000 researchers were invited to comment on a paper jointly written by a Nobel laureate and a junior research associate. When the junior researcher was the only name shown on the manuscript, 65% of reviewers recommended rejection. When the more famous moniker was revealed, only 23% of reviewers wanted to reject the paper (SSRN doi:10.2139/ssrn.4190976).Salt content of foodSurveys of packaged food products sold in the UK show that, between 2015 and 2020, mean salt content fell by a nugatory 4%. The reduction wasn't statistically significant and might represent no more than random variation over time (PLOS Med doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004114). It looks as if voluntary salt reduction targets for the UK food industry are having little effect, which is disappointing since reducing salt intake is a declared public health priority.Stages...
Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

Jorge Vasconez-Gonzalez,Juan S. Izquierdo-Condoy,Patricio Naranjo-Lara,Miguel Ángel Garcia-Bereguiain,Esteban Ortiz-Prado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424

IF: 3.9

2024-07-17

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the “publish or perish” culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of “paper mills,” and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

medicine, general & internal
[The spread of the plague: A sciento-historiographic review]

Coral Cuadrada

Abstract:There is still uncertainty about the diagnosis and nature of the plague; some scholars have been forced to abandon certainties and be filled with doubts: from believing that the mediaeval Black Plague was, in reality, the bubonic plague (although with unusual characteristics) to stating that there is very little evidence to support a retro-diagnosis. This article looks at this in depth, not only reviewing the historiography but also giving new interpretations which question previous hypotheses through research on images of the time, comparing them to the most recent investigative data. Two primary sources are analysed: Renaissance treaties written by four Italian doctors: Michele Savonarola, Marsilio Ficino, Leonardo Fioravanti and Gioseffo Daciano; and iconography: an illustrated manuscript of the Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio and a Hebrew Haggadah from the XIVth century. The results are compared to the most recent research on DNA and in micropaleontology.
The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower

Ying Liu,Kaiqi Yang,Yue Liu,Michael G. B. Drew

2023-09-19

Abstract:This essay delves into the ethical dilemmas encountered within the academic peer review process and investigates the prevailing deficiencies in this system. It highlights how established scholars often adhere to mainstream theories not out of genuine belief, but to safeguard their own reputations. This practice perpetuates intellectual conformity, fuels confirmation bias, and stifles dissenting voices. Furthermore, as the number of incorrect papers published by influential scientists increases, it inadvertently encourages more researchers to follow suit, tacitly endorsing incorrect viewpoints. By examining historical instances of suppressed ideas later proven valuable, this essay calls for a reevaluation of academia's commitment to genuine innovation and progress which is usually achieved by applications of fundamental principles in from textbooks.

Physics and Society
A Whimsical Odyssey Through the Maze of Scholarly Reviews

Karu Sankaralingam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3686260

IF: 22.7

2024-10-26

Communications of the ACM

Abstract:Authors often encounter three formidable gatekeepers in the labyrinthine corridors of academic publishing: the Confused Reviewer, the Rational Reviewer, and the Lazy Reviewer.

computer science, theory & methods, software engineering, hardware & architecture
An Attempt at a Historic Reading of the Short Story Exemplum IX, Day ІІ (Bernabò and Ginevra) from Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron

Angel Angelov,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53656/bel2022-2-1-aa

2022-03-20

Abstract:I attempt to restore elements of the horizon of perception that readers and listeners of the Bernabò and Zinevra novella (IX, Day II) from Decameron may have had in Italian cities in the mid-14th century. I discuss topics such as sustainability in social roles, cruelty and justice, the image of wolves, topography, the relationship between fairy tale and authenticity, the importance of the exemplum. The novel exemplum conveys experience, indicates a norm and its violation. Speaking of truth, deception and punishment, the short story establishes a pattern of behaviour.
The Science Wars: a pox on both their houses

Stephen Boughn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10461.08169

2023-02-20

Abstract:According to physicist David Mermin, the science wars was a series of exchanges between scientists and "sociologists, historians, and literary critics" whom the scientists thought to be "ludicrously ignorant of science, making all kinds of nonsensical pronouncements." The science wars peaked in 1996 with the publication of a hoax article by physicist Alan Sokal in a cultural studies journal and then seemed mercifully to die away by the end of the 1990's. I recently noticed, however, that the kerfuffle has persisted. This motivated me to pen this essay and point out the silliness of the entire affair.

History and Philosophy of Physics
Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability

Brian A. Nosek,Jeffrey Robert Spies,Matt Motyl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/k4bgq

2016-08-29

Abstract:An academic scientist’s professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive – getting it right – competitive with the more tangible and concrete incentive – getting it published. We develop strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.

The Decameron of poor research

The figure of the doctor and the science of medicine through Boccaccio's "Decameron"

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media

Four decades of counterfeit research: A bibliometric analysis

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

Scientific fraud: attack on the credibility of science

The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences by Jason A. Josephson-Storm

Science Wars, Scientism, and Think Tanks

The Decretists and the “Deserving Poor”

Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum

Reputation, review, . . . and other stories

Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

[The spread of the plague: A sciento-historiographic review]

The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower

A Whimsical Odyssey Through the Maze of Scholarly Reviews

An Attempt at a Historic Reading of the Short Story Exemplum IX, Day ІІ (Bernabò and Ginevra) from Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron

The Science Wars: a pox on both their houses

Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability