Design-based stereology: Planning, volumetry and sampling are crucial steps for a successful study.

S. Tschanz,J. P. Schneider,L. Knudsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2013.04.011

Annals of Anatomy

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Moral Positive Illusion: Self–other Valuation Difference in Moral Foundation Theory

Tiantian Mo,Jiarui Sui,Yujie Zhao,Xinyue Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2134134

2023-01-01

Ethics & Behavior

Abstract:People tend to be unable to evaluate themselves accurately in many areas. One such area is their own and others’ morality. The current research explores the self–other moral valuation difference in the context of moral foundation theory. We propose that people generally have a moral positive illusion. Specifically, people overestimate their own morality and underestimate the morality of others. Two studies provide converging evidence that individuals underestimate the average moral valuations of others on the five dimensions of moral foundation theory. In particular, we demonstrate three moderators for moral positive illusion: moral foundation type, gender, and political identity. Specifically, compared with the binding foundations, people have greater moral positive illusions based on the individualizing foundations; compared to men, women have greater moral positive illusions; and compared with liberals, conservatives have greater moral positive illusions based on the binding foundations.
Measurement Invariance of the Moral Vitalism Scale Across 28 Cultural Groups.

Maksim Rudnev,Christin-Melanie Vauclair,Samira Aminihajibashi,Maja Becker,Michal Bilewicz,Jose Luis Castellanos Guevara,Emma Collier-Baker,Carla Crespo,Paul Eastwick,Ronald Fischer,Malte Friese,Angel Gomez,Valeschka Guerra,Katja Hanke,Nic Hooper,Li-li Huang,Minoru Karasawa,Peter Kuppens,Steve Loughnan,Mujde Peker,Cesar Pelay,Afroditi Pina,Marianna Sachkova,Tamar Saguy,Junqi Shi,Mia Silfver-Kuhalampi,Florencia Sortheix,William Swann,Jennifer (Yuk-Yue) Tong,Victoria Wailan Yeung,Brock Bastian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233989

IF: 3.7

2020-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Moral vitalism refers to a tendency to view good and evil as actual forces that can influence people and events. The Moral Vitalism Scale had been designed to assess moral vitalism in a brief survey form. Previous studies established the reliability and validity of the scale in US-American and Australian samples. In this study, the cross-cultural comparability of the scale was tested across 28 different cultural groups worldwide through measurement invariance tests. A series of exact invariance tests marginally supported partial metric invariance, however, an approximate invariance approach provided evidence of partial scalar invariance for a 5-item measure. The established level of measurement invariance allows for comparisons of latent means across cultures. We conclude that the brief measure of moral vitalism is invariant across 28 cultures and can be used to estimate levels of moral vitalism with the same precision across very different cultural settings.
What are you assessing when you measure "trust" in scientists with a direct measure?

Leigh Anne Tiffany,John C. Besley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231161302

2023-04-06

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:Public Understanding of Science, Ahead of Print. This article analyzes three publicly available datasets focused on trust in science and scientists. It specifically seeks to understand what direct measures of trust (i.e. questions that directly ask respondents how much they trust scientists) assess in terms of discrete measures of trustworthiness (i.e. perceptions of scientists' ability, integrity, and benevolence). Underlying the analyses is a concern that direct measures of trust are a poor substitute for differentiating between discrete trustworthiness perceptions and behavioral trust in the form of a specific willingness to make oneself vulnerable. The research concludes that it is unclear what direct trust measures are capturing in any given context and suggests that researchers should better use trust-related theory when designing surveys and trust-focused campaigns. The secondary data used come from the General Social Survey, Gallup, and the Pew Research Center.

communication,history & philosophy of science
The effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research

Jonah Koetke,Karina Schumann,Shauna M. Bowes,Nina Vaupotič

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02060-x

IF: 24.252

2024-11-27

Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract:Public trust in scientists is critical to our ability to face societal threats. Here, across five pre-registered studies ( N = 2,034), we assessed whether perceptions of scientists' intellectual humility affect perceived trustworthiness of scientists and their research. In study 1, we found that seeing scientists as higher in intellectual humility was associated with greater perceived trustworthiness of scientists and support for science-based beliefs. We then demonstrated that describing a scientist as high (versus low) in intellectual humility increased perceived trustworthiness of the scientist (studies 2–4), belief in their research (studies 2–4), intentions to follow their research-based recommendations (study 3) and information-seeking behaviour (study 4). We further demonstrated that these effects were not moderated by the scientist's gender (study 3) or race/ethnicity (study 4). In study 5, we experimentally tested communication approaches that scientists can use to convey intellectual humility. These studies reveal the benefits of seeing scientists as intellectually humble across medical, psychological and climate science topics.

psychology, experimental,neurosciences,multidisciplinary sciences
Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review

Linus Johnsson,Stefan Eriksson,Gert Helgesson,Mats G Hansson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016113504778

2014-03-01

Research Ethics

Abstract:Research ethics, once a platform for declaring intent, discussing moral issues and providing advice and guidance to researchers, has developed over time into an extra-legal regulatory system, complete with steering documents (ethics guidelines), overseeing bodies (research ethics committees) and formal procedures (informed consent). The process of institutionalizing distrust is usually motivated by reference to past atrocities committed in the name of research and the need to secure the trustworthiness of the research system. This article examines some limitations of this approach. First, past atrocities cannot provide the necessary justification unless institutionalized distrust is a necessary or efficient means to prevent future ones – and there are several reasons to doubt this. Second, the efficacy of ethics review in safeguarding morally acceptable research depends on the moral competence and integrity of individual researchers – the very qualities that institutionalized distrust calls into question. Third, ethics guidelines cannot, as is sometimes assumed, educate or guide researchers in moral behaviour unless they already possess considerable capacity for moral judgment. Fourth, institutionalized distrust is a potential threat to the moral competence and integrity of researchers by encouraging a blinkered view of ethical issues, inducing moral heteronomy through incentives, and alienating them to research ethics. We conclude that the moral problem posed by inappropriate short-term behaviour on behalf of researchers is dwarfed by the potential long-term consequences if their moral competence is allowed to deteriorate. Measures must therefore be taken to ensure that researchers are equipped to take their individual responsibility and are not obstructed from so doing.
Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

David Robert Grimes,Chris T. Bauch,John P. A. Ioannidis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171511

IF: 3.5

2018-01-01

Royal Society Open Science

Abstract:Scientific publication is immensely important to the scientific endeavour. There is, however, concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive, allowing careless and fraudulent conduct to thrive, compounded by the predisposition of top-tier journals towards novel, positive findings rather than investigations confirming null hypothesis. This potentially compounds a reproducibility crisis in several fields, and risks undermining science and public trust in scientific findings. To date, there has been comparatively little modelling on factors that influence science trustworthiness, despite the importance of quantifying the problem. We present a simple phenomenological model with cohorts of diligent, careless and unethical scientists, with funding allocated by published outputs. This analysis suggests that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.

multidisciplinary sciences
Photoionisation cross section for He in the hyperspherical coordinate method

Donald L. Miller,A. Starace

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/13/17/004

1980-09-14

Abstract:The hyperspherical coordinate method developed by Macek, Fano, Lin and Klar (1968 to 1978) to describe two-electron correlations is used for the first time to treat an atomic photoionisation process. Using adiabatic approximations for both the initial and the final state, the cross section for the process He+y to He+1s+e- is calculated and is found to lie 1% higher than the revised experimental data of Samson (1976) at threshold, 4% lower at 1 Ryd above threshold, and 12% lower at 1.9 Ryd above threshold.
Who is at risk of bias? Examining dispositional differences in motivated science reception

Marlene Sophie Altenmüller,Laura Amelie Poppe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241262611

2024-07-31

Abstract:The motivated reception of science in line with one's preexisting convictions is a well-documented, pervasive phenomenon. In two studies (N = 743), we investigated whether this bias might be stronger in some people than others due to dispositional differences. Building on the assumptions that motivated science reception is driven by perceived threat and suspicion and higher under perceived ambiguity and uncertainty, we focused on traits associated with such perceptions. In particular, we tested the impact of conspiracy mentality and victim sensitivity on motivated science reception (as indicated by ascriptions of researchers' trustworthiness and evidence credibility). In addition, we explored the role of broader personality traits (generalized mistrust and ambiguity intolerance) in this context. None of the investigated dispositions modulated the motivated science reception effect. This demonstrates once again, that motivated science reception is a ubiquitous challenge for the effective dissemination of science and everyone seems to be at risk of it.
Does observability amplify sensitivity to moral frames? Evaluating a reputation-based account of moral preferences

Valerio Capraro,Jillian J. Jordan,Ben M. Tappin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104103

IF: 3.532

2021-05-01

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Abstract:A growing body of work suggests that people are sensitive to moral framing in economic games involving prosociality, suggesting that people hold moral preferences for doing the "right thing". What gives rise to these preferences? Here, we evaluate the explanatory power of a reputation-based account, which proposes that people respond to moral frames because they are motivated to look good in the eyes of others. Across four pre-registered experiments (total N = 9601), we investigated whether reputational incentives amplify sensitivity to framing effects. Studies 1–3 manipulated (i) whether moral or neutral framing was used to describe a Trade-Off Game (in which participants chose between prioritizing equality or efficiency) and (ii) whether Trade-Off Game choices were observable to a social partner in a subsequent Trust Game. These studies found that observability does not significantly amplify sensitivity to moral framing. Study 4 ruled out the alternative explanation that the observability manipulation from Studies 1–3 is too weak to influence behavior. In Study 4, the same observability manipulation did significantly amplify sensitivity to normative information (about what others see as moral in the Trade-Off Game). Together, these results suggest that moral frames may tap into moral preferences that are relatively deeply internalized, such that the power of moral frames is not strongly enhanced by making the morally-framed behavior observable to others.

psychology, social
Measuring science: irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences

Giovanni Abramo,Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.09062

2018-12-21

Abstract:In benchmarking international research, although publication and citation analyses should not be used to compare different disciplines, scientometrists frequently fail to resist the temptation to present rankings based on total publications and citations. Such measures are affected by significant distortions, due to the uneven fertility across scientific disciplines and the dishomogeneity of scientific specialisation among nations and universities. In this paper, we provide an indication of the extent of the distortions when comparative bibliometric analyses fail to recognise the range of levels of scientific fertility, not only within a given major disciplinary area but also within the different scientific disciplines encompassed by the same area.

Digital Libraries
The notion of moral competence in the scientific literature: a critical review of a thin concept

Dominic Martin,Carl-Maria Mörch,Emmanuelle Figoli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2067163

2022-07-21

Abstract:This critical review accomplished two main tasks: first, the article provides scope for identifying the most common conceptions of moral competence in the scientific literature, as well as the different ways to measure this type of competence. Having moral judgment is the most popular element of moral competence, but the literature introduces many other elements. The review also shows there is a plethora of ways to measure moral competence, either in standardized tests providing scores or other non-standardized tests. As a second task, the article reflects critically on the general use of the idea of moral competence. Results suggest that this idea functions as what philosopher Bernard Williams would have called a thin ethical concept. Thin concepts are not problematic in and of themselves if they are used as linguistic shorthand, however, there may be shortcomings in the literature on moral competence because the idea is not rooted in more substantive views or theories in a way that is both clear and coherent.

psychology, multidisciplinary,ethics
Scientists as Influencers: The Role of Source Identity, Self-Disclosure, and Anti-Intellectualism in Science Communication on Social Media

Annie Li Zhang,Hang Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231180623

2023-06-24

Social Media and Society

Abstract:Social Media + Society, Volume 9, Issue 2, April-June 2023. As social media become increasingly important for science communication, scientists are grappling with their new role on these platforms. While some have called for the increased presence and training of scientists on social media, others prefer to leverage the influence of social media influencers for science communication. This study explores the effects of source identity (scientist or influencer) and self-disclosure type (personal or professional) on perceptions of authenticity and expertise, as well as parasocial interactions. In an online between-subjects experiment (N = 1579), participants rated scientists on Twitter as more authentic and qualified than influencers, and rated Twitter profiles with professional self-disclosure as more qualified than profiles with personal self-disclosure. Subsequently, participants indicated stronger parasocial interactions, higher information-seeking intentions, and higher prosocial intentions. Anti-intellectualism was found to moderate these relationships. These findings suggest that scientists can employ certain strategies as they seek to establish themselves and reach wider audiences on social media platforms.
Analytical decisions pose moral questions

Mirela Zaneva Christ Church College,University of Oxford,Oxford,UK

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2425689

2024-11-08

Health Psychology Review

Abstract:How often do we reflect on the potential moral or value implications – what is right, wrong, has value and is (in)appropriate – of seemingly trivial analytical decisions, such as how to dichotomise a variable? I argue that analytical choices relate to multifaceted and oftentimes challenging moral issues that scientists should take into deeper consideration. Here, I illustrate a variety of potential considerations about moral values, including issues like exclusion, marginalisation, autonomy, responsibility, non-maleficence in relation to various common analytical choices and practices, such as the use of thresholds for disease diagnosis or population definition, the use of composite measures in the context of clarifying effects, classification practices, decisions on variable selection, as well as decisions relating to (dis)aggregation of data. I discuss these examples in the context of reasonable theoretical or statistical reservations. I advocate for deeper engagement with the difficult moral implications of analytical decisions, and for a principled and pluralistic science, that is also a more robust science. Such a science can include diverse moral views through a coupled ethical-epistemic approach, sensitivity tests, multiverse analysis, as well as stronger commitments to participatory and mutual learning practices.

psychology, clinical
Commonsense morality and the bearable automaticity of being

Samuel Murray,Thomas Nadelhoffer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2024.103748

Abstract:Some research suggests that moral behavior can be strongly influenced by trivial features of the environment of which we are completely unaware. Philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists have argued that these findings undermine our commonsense notions of agency and responsibility, both of which emphasize the role of practical reasoning and conscious deliberation in action. We present the results of four vignette-based studies (N=1,437) designed to investigate how people think about the metaphysical and moral implications of scientific findings that reveal our susceptibility to automaticity and situational influences. When presented with lightly fictionalized narratives about these findings, participants exhibit no tendency toward changing judgments of freedom and responsibility compared to control groups. This suggests that people seem unwilling to adopt skeptical attitudes about agency on the basis of these scientific findings.
Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Cory J Clark,Lee Jussim,Komi Frey,Sean T Stevens,Musa Al-Gharbi,Karl Aquino,J Michael Bailey,Nicole Barbaro,Roy F Baumeister,April Bleske-Rechek,David Buss,Stephen Ceci,Marco Del Giudice,Peter H Ditto,Joseph P Forgas,David C Geary,Glenn Geher,Sarah Haider,Nathan Honeycutt,Hrishikesh Joshi,Anna I Krylov,Elizabeth Loftus,Glenn Loury,Louise Lu,Michael Macy,Chris C Martin,John McWhorter,Geoffrey Miller,Pamela Paresky,Steven Pinker,Wilfred Reilly,Catherine Salmon,Steve Stewart-Williams,Philip E Tetlock,Wendy M Williams,Anne E Wilson,Bo M Winegard,George Yancey,William von Hippel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

2023-11-28

Abstract:Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.
When experts matter: Variations in consensus messaging for vaccine and genetically modified organism safety

Benjamin A Lyons,Vittorio Mérola,Jason Reifler,Anna Katharina Spälti,Christine Stedtnitz,Florian Stoeckel,Benjamin A. Lyons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231188594

2023-08-21

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:Public Understanding of Science, Ahead of Print. Does consensus messaging about contested science issues influence perceptions of consensus and/or personal beliefs? This question remains open, particularly for topics other than climate change and samples outside the United States. In a Spanish national sample (N = 5087), we use preregistered survey experiments to examine differential efficacy of variations in consensus messaging for vaccines and genetically modified organisms. We find that no variation of consensus messaging influences vaccine beliefs. For genetically modified organisms, about which misperceptions are particularly prevalent in our sample, we find that scientific consensus messaging increases perception of consensus and personal belief that genetically modified organisms are safe, and decreases support for a ban. Increasing degree of consensus did not have consistent effects. Although individual differences (e.g. a conspiratorial worldview) predict these genetically modified organism beliefs, they do not undercut consensus message effects. While we observe relatively modest effect sizes, consensus messaging may be able to improve the accuracy of beliefs about some contentious topics.

communication,history & philosophy of science
Individual differences in scientists' aesthetic disposition, aesthetic experiences, and aesthetic sensitivity in scientific work

Christopher Jacobi,Peter J. Varga,Zohaib Jessani,Brandon Vaidyanathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1197870

IF: 3.8

2024-01-08

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:Introduction: The role of personality in shaping engagement with aesthetics in science has been almost entirely unexplored. Whereas artists and arts settings (e.g., museums) are well-studied from a psychological perspective, the practice of science has often been seen as purely rational or dry. In response, this study presents novel findings on the critical role of scientists' individual differences, which shape their engagement with aesthetics, such as the frequency of their experiences of beauty, wonder, and awe in their scientific work. Methods: Based on a very large and representative four-country study of scientists in the fields of biology and physics ( N = 3,092), this study analyzed the associations of Big Five personality traits among scientists with (i) dispositional aesthetics (DPES-awe), (ii) the frequency of aesthetic experiences in scientific work, and (iii) aesthetic sensitivity in science. These survey-weighted OLS regression models included extensive statistical controls for sociodemographic factors. Results: As hypothesized, openness is positively, and neuroticism is negatively linked with dispositional aesthetics, the frequency of aesthetic experiences in scientific work, and aesthetic sensitivity in science. Unexpectedly, agreeableness and conscientiousness (but not extraversion) are highly significant and strong predictors of the three trait and state aesthetic engagement variables. Discussion: The aesthetic engagement and personality framework of this paper is empirically supported and demonstrates the importance of personality types of scientists in the practice of science. The unexpectedly strong association of agreeableness with aesthetic engagement points to the importance of cooperation, collaboration, and communication to maximize scientific creativity.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Systemic Explanations of Scientific Misconduct: Provoked by Spectacular Cases of Norm Violation?

Pieter Huistra,Herman Paul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09389-8

2021-01-11

Journal of Academic Ethics

Abstract:Abstract In the past two decades, individual explanations of scientific misconduct (‘bad apples’) have increasingly given way to systemic explanations (‘bad systems’). Where did this interest in systemic factors (publication pressure, competition for research funding) come from? Given that research ethicists often present their interventions as responses to scientific misconduct, this article tests the hypothesis that these systemic explanations were triggered by high-visibility cases of scientific norm violation. It does so by examining why Dutch scientists in 2011 explained Diederik Stapel’s grand-scale data fabrication largely in systemic terms, whereas only fifteen years earlier, in the René Diekstra affair (1996), such explanations had been close to absent. Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, the article suggests that cases like Stapel’s as such do not explain why early 21st-century commentators exchanged individual explanations for systemic ones. Only against the background of an existing discourse of criticism of the science system, developed in the 1990s and 2000s in response to rapidly increasing competition for research funding, could the Stapel affair achieve notoriety as an example of how systemic factors provoke bad conduct.
Dare to know! The existential costs of a faith in science

Dunigan Folk,Bastiaan T. Rutjens,Michiel Van Elk,Steven J. Heine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2314294

2024-02-11

The Journal of Positive Psychology

Abstract:We explored the differing dimensions of science beliefs and how they relate to existential benefits such as meaning in life and feelings of significance. Across two studies involving American adults and American STEM workers ( N = 1001), scientism and scientific reductionism were negatively associated with existential benefits. In contrast, optimism towards science was positively associated with existential benefits. Our findings suggest that a dogmatic view of science does not serve as a substitute for the meaning and significance that religion often provides. The results also highlight the importance of treating faith in science as a multi-dimensional construct.

psychology, multidisciplinary
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

Daniele Fanelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

IF: 3.7

2009-05-29

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, "cooking" of data, etc... Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86-4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once--a serious form of misconduct by any standard--and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words "falsification" or "fabrication", and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

multidisciplinary sciences

Design-based stereology: Planning, volumetry and sampling are crucial steps for a successful study.

Moral Positive Illusion: Self–other Valuation Difference in Moral Foundation Theory

Measurement Invariance of the Moral Vitalism Scale Across 28 Cultural Groups.

What are you assessing when you measure "trust" in scientists with a direct measure?

The effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research

Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review

Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

Photoionisation cross section for He in the hyperspherical coordinate method

Who is at risk of bias? Examining dispositional differences in motivated science reception

Does observability amplify sensitivity to moral frames? Evaluating a reputation-based account of moral preferences

Measuring science: irresistible temptations, easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences

The notion of moral competence in the scientific literature: a critical review of a thin concept

Scientists as Influencers: The Role of Source Identity, Self-Disclosure, and Anti-Intellectualism in Science Communication on Social Media

Analytical decisions pose moral questions

Commonsense morality and the bearable automaticity of being

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

When experts matter: Variations in consensus messaging for vaccine and genetically modified organism safety

Individual differences in scientists' aesthetic disposition, aesthetic experiences, and aesthetic sensitivity in scientific work

Systemic Explanations of Scientific Misconduct: Provoked by Spectacular Cases of Norm Violation?

Dare to know! The existential costs of a faith in science

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data