Why they take risks

Vivien Marx

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02432-1

IF: 48

2024-09-19

Nature Methods

Abstract:Nature Methods, Published online: 18 September 2024; doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02432-1 Developing new methods takes passion and a penchant for risk-taking.

biochemical research methods

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Positive Deviance Underlies Successful Science: Normative Methodologies Risk Throwing out the Baby With the Bathwater

R. Hans Phaf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680241235120

IF: 4.615

2024-02-20

Review of General Psychology

Abstract:Review of General Psychology, Ahead of Print. Successful science needs deviant ideas that may challenge established norms. The last decade saw an unprecedented science-engineering project, with strict rules on preregistration, statistical testing, result-independent guaranteed publication, replication, and openness badging being enforced by psychological journals. These normative methodologies seek to prevent failure (negative deviance) rather than promote success (positive deviance), and run counter to the historical development of successful science. By narrowly focusing on research data, while avoiding theoretical bias, they are inadequate for tackling, often intractable, scientific problems. Instead, unconventional, exceptional, and even initially implausible hypotheses should be fostered. A novel connection is drawn between positive deviance and the unplanned, haphazard evolution of successful science. Hypotheses compete for the highest fitness while probing an ever-changing, infinitely wide, empirical and theoretical landscape. The winner constitutes the positive deviant, but always remains subject to future competition. Losing negative deviants, which may share characteristics with winners, become irrelevant, sometimes long after their inception, and eventually sink into oblivion. Normative methodologies aim to curb negative deviants at their source, but also cut off positive deviants and may freeze successful science. More room for deviance and a theory primacy are advocated, allowing research to generate discovery and innovation in psychological science.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Rationalizing risk aversion in science: Why incentives to work hard clash with incentives to take risks

Kevin Gross,Carl T Bergstrom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002750

2024-08-15

Abstract:Scientific research requires taking risks, as the most cautious approaches are unlikely to lead to the most rapid progress. Yet, much funded scientific research plays it safe and funding agencies bemoan the difficulty of attracting high-risk, high-return research projects. Why don't the incentives for scientific discovery adequately impel researchers toward such projects? Here, we adapt an economic contracting model to explore how the unobservability of risk and effort discourages risky research. The model considers a hidden-action problem, in which the scientific community must reward discoveries in a way that encourages effort and risk-taking while simultaneously protecting researchers' livelihoods against the vicissitudes of scientific chance. Its challenge when doing so is that incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would. A social planner who prizes scientific productivity above researchers' well-being could remedy the problem by rewarding major discoveries richly enough to induce high-risk research, but in doing so would expose scientists to a degree of livelihood risk that ultimately leaves them worse off. Because the scientific community is approximately self-governing and constructs its own reward schedule, the incentives that researchers are willing to impose on themselves are inadequate to motivate the scientific risks that would best expedite scientific progress.
Rationalizing risk aversion in science

Kevin Gross,Carl T. Bergstrom

2024-02-27

Abstract:Scientific research requires taking risks, as the most cautious approaches are unlikely to lead to the most rapid progress. Yet much funded scientific research plays it safe and funding agencies bemoan the difficulty of attracting high-risk, high-return research projects. Why don't the incentives for scientific discovery adequately impel researchers toward such projects? Here we adapt an economic contracting model to explore how the unobservability of risk and effort discourages risky research. The model considers a hidden-action problem, in which the scientific community must reward discoveries in a way that encourages effort and risk-taking while simultaneously protecting researchers' livelihoods against the vicissitudes of scientific chance. Its challenge when doing so is that incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would. A social planner who prizes scientific productivity above researchers' well-being could remedy the problem by rewarding major discoveries richly enough to induce high-risk research, but scientists would be worse off for it. Because the scientific community is approximately self-governing and constructs its own reward schedule, the incentives that researchers are willing to impose on themselves are inadequate to motivate the scientific risks that would best expedite scientific progress.

Physics and Society
Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Christopher Allen,David M. A. Mehler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

IF: 9.8

2019-05-01

PLoS Biology

Abstract:The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
"Sometimes You Just Gotta Risk It for the Biscuit": A Portrait of Student Risk-Taking

Juho Leinonen,Paul Denny

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3649165.3690097

2024-10-08

Abstract:Understanding how individuals make decisions involving risk is a fundamental aspect of behavioral research. Despite the ubiquity of risk in various aspects of life, limited empirical work has explored student risk-taking behavior in computing education. This study aims to partially replicate prior research on risk-taking behavior in software engineers while focusing on students, shedding light on the factors that affect their risk-taking choices. In our work, students were presented with a hypothetical scenario related to meeting a course project deadline, where they had to choose between a risky option and a safer alternative. We examined several factors that might influence these choices, including the framing of the decision (as a potential gain or loss), students' enjoyment of programming, perceived difficulty of programming, and their performance in the course. Our findings reveal intriguing insights into student risk-taking behavior. Similar to software engineers in prior work, the framing of the decision significantly impacted the choices students made, with the loss framing leading to a higher likelihood for risky choices. Surprisingly, students displayed a greater inclination towards risk-taking compared to their professional counterparts in prior research. Furthermore, we observed that students' performance in the course and their enjoyment of programming had a subtle correlation with their risk-taking tendencies, with better-performing students and those who enjoyed programming being marginally more prone to taking risks. Notably, we did not find statistically significant correlations between perceived difficulty of programming and risk-taking behavior among students.

Software Engineering,Human-Computer Interaction
Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

Shital Thekdi,Terje Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14262

Abstract:Risk analysis has existed for thousands of years and will continue to grow in importance across professions and industries. Of special importance is the need to understand and manage risk when there is low knowledge and high uncertainties. Even with pristine and high-quality risk analysis in these situations, integrity and credibility can be questioned, and risk events can happen. Although these issues do not prove some shortcoming in risk analysis and risk management, they can directly impact the risk analyst and decision-makers. The risk literature has addressed the issues of defining and promoting integrity and credibility for risk studies, but there is little existing guidance for the analyst when handling the commonly encountered low knowledge and high uncertainty contexts. In this article, we explore the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies to understand how the risk analyst can acknowledge those features in a risk study, with recognition that those features may be questioned later. The topic of this article will be of interest to risk managers, professionals, and analysts in general who are tasked with analyzing and communicating with studies.
Scientific novelty beyond the experiment

John E Hallsworth,Zulema Udaondo,Carlos Pedrós-Alió,Juan Höfer,Kathleen C Benison,Karen G Lloyd,Radamés J B Cordero,Claudia B L de Campos,Michail M Yakimov,Ricardo Amils

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14222

Abstract:Practical experiments drive important scientific discoveries in biology, but theory-based research studies also contribute novel-sometimes paradigm-changing-findings. Here, we appraise the roles of theory-based approaches focusing on the experiment-dominated wet-biology research areas of microbial growth and survival, cell physiology, host-pathogen interactions, and competitive or symbiotic interactions. Additional examples relate to analyses of genome-sequence data, climate change and planetary health, habitability, and astrobiology. We assess the importance of thought at each step of the research process; the roles of natural philosophy, and inconsistencies in logic and language, as drivers of scientific progress; the value of thought experiments; the use and limitations of artificial intelligence technologies, including their potential for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research; and other instances when theory is the most-direct and most-scientifically robust route to scientific novelty including the development of techniques for practical experimentation or fieldwork. We highlight the intrinsic need for human engagement in scientific innovation, an issue pertinent to the ongoing controversy over papers authored using/authored by artificial intelligence (such as the large language model/chatbot ChatGPT). Other issues discussed are the way in which aspects of language can bias thinking towards the spatial rather than the temporal (and how this biased thinking can lead to skewed scientific terminology); receptivity to research that is non-mainstream; and the importance of theory-based science in education and epistemology. Whereas we briefly highlight classic works (those by Oakes Ames, Francis H.C. Crick and James D. Watson, Charles R. Darwin, Albert Einstein, James E. Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Gilbert Ryle, Erwin R.J.A. Schrödinger, Alan M. Turing, and others), the focus is on microbiology studies that are more-recent, discussing these in the context of the scientific process and the types of scientific novelty that they represent. These include several studies carried out during the 2020 to 2022 lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic when access to research laboratories was disallowed (or limited). We interviewed the authors of some of the featured microbiology-related papers and-although we ourselves are involved in laboratory experiments and practical fieldwork-also drew from our own research experiences showing that such studies can not only produce new scientific findings but can also transcend barriers between disciplines, act counter to scientific reductionism, integrate biological data across different timescales and levels of complexity, and circumvent constraints imposed by practical techniques. In relation to urgent research needs, we believe that climate change and other global challenges may require approaches beyond the experiment.
Risk science applied to major risk events in history

Shital Thekdi,Terje Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14260

Abstract:Major risk events in history are often labeled as black swans or as unforeseeable given the risk policies and procedures existing at the time. Hindsight suggests that many of these events could have been foreseeable. This article explores past risk events, (1) analyzes how risk science principles apply to those events, and (2) studies gaps and opportunities for risk science using the lenses of consequences, uncertainty, and knowledge as they relate to evidence used for risk assessment prior to the risk event. New insights are obtained, relating to general foundational risk science issues and a classification system for characterizing the integrity and quality of evidence in risk studies. The analysis results are used to identify how risk science approaches contribute to the overall management of risk and societal safety, and where improvements can be obtained.
Why (and how) we should publish negative data

Simon Nimpf,David A Keays

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201949775

IF: 9.071

2019-12-20

EMBO Reports

Abstract:Central to the scientific method are the concepts of falsifiability and hypothesis testing: We cannot prove a hypothesis, merely acquire evidence that supports or refutes it <a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#embr201949775-bib-0001">1</a>. We should reject those ideas that we can refute and advance those that we cannot. In this respect, the generation and publication of negative data lie at the very heart of the scientific enterprise, and yet, there is an overwhelming focus on positive findings. Whether it is a PhD student, postdoc, lab head or an editor, there is a great reluctance to publish a paper that begins with the word "No". In fact, the percentage of papers declaring support for a tested hypothesis has increased by 22% between 1990 and 2007 across scientific disciplines <a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#embr201949775-bib-0002">2</a>. This has served to fuel the exaggeration and distortion of scientific findings, which has led to the "reproducibility crisis". Current evidence suggests that between 51 and 89% of published studies cannot be reproduced <a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#embr201949775-bib-0003">3</a><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#embr201949775-bib-0004">4</a><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#embr201949775-bib-0005">5</a>, a fact which has even caught the attention of the mainstream media. It has considerable economic consequences, resulting in some $28 billion of wasteful spending per year in the USA alone <a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#embr201949775-bib-0006">6</a>. Failure to publish negative data ensures that dubious ideas and wrong‐headed projects receive financial support with multiple groups toiling away in vain, when that money and time could be spent on more productive endeavors <a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#embr201949775-bib-0007">7</a>. So, the philosophical, practical, and economic arguments for publishing negative data are strong—but what is the best way to do this?

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology
Why publish? An interview study exploring patient innovators' reasons for and experiences of scientific publishing

Marie Dahlberg,Jamie Linnea Luckhaus,Henna Hasson,Hanna Jansson,Madelen Lek,Carl Savage,Sara Riggare,Carolina Wannheden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00589-9

2024-06-06

Abstract:Background: Scientific publications featuring patient-driven innovations (i.e., innovations that are developed and driven by patients or informal caregivers) are increasing. By understanding patient innovators' experiences of research publication, the scientific community may be better prepared to support or partner with patient innovators. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore patient innovators' reasons for and experiences of authoring scientific publications about their innovations. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 international patient innovators from three continents who had published in scientific journals. Participants were identified through a scoping review on patient-driven innovations and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted from June to October 2022 and the data was analyzed using the Framework Method. Findings: Participants' reasons for publishing in scientific journals were to strengthen the roles and voices of patients and informal caregivers, and to get recognition for their innovations. Some published as a response to serendipitous opportunities. Several positive experiences were reported: collaborations defined by transparency, mutual respect, and meaningful participation; learning and competence development; and gained confidence regarding the value of lived experiences in research. Participants also reported negative experiences, such as cultural barriers manifested as conservatism in academia and power imbalances between participants and researchers, and structural barriers regarding academic affiliations and research funding. Conclusions: Despite progress in increasing patient and public involvement in research and publication, our study found that patient innovators still experience barriers. This suggests that continued efforts are needed to facilitate contributions from patient innovators and other public actors to the production of relevant and meaningful research.
Open Science Is Liberating and Can Foster Creativity

Willem E Frankenhuis,Daniel Nettle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618767878

Abstract:Some scholars think that Open Science practices constrain researchers in ways that reduce their creativity, arguing, for instance, that preregistration discourages data exploration and so stifles discovery. In this article, we argue the opposite: Open Science practices are liberating and can foster creativity. Open Science practices are liberating because they (a) enable us to explore data transparently and comfortably; (b) reward quality, which is under our control, rather than outcomes, which are not; and (c) reduce the choke hold of needing to find "positive" results for career advancement. Open Science practices can foster creativity because they cultivate an open and flexible mind-set, create a more collaborative and constructive climate, and generate more accurate information and make it more accessible. In sum, Open Science liberates researchers more than it constrains them.
Five Things Not to Do When Discovering a Biosecurity Vulnerability

Piers D Millett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2023.0038

2024-09-18

Abstract:Introduction: Tools to screen orders submitted to companies synthesizing nucleic acids or machines that can synthesize them are vital to help ensure the building blocks for pathogens, toxins, or other biotechnology that could cause harm are kept in the right hands. Methods: The author has argued that it would be worrying if someone discovering a vulnerability in a nucleic acid synthesis tool was to (1) publicly release it without a "patch," (2) set an impossible timeframe to patch it before public release, (3) refuse to report it without a reward, (4) test it on a tool without the developer's/operator's consent, or (5) create a real biological hazard while exploring hypothetical biosecurity vulnerabilities. Conclusion: It will be a much harder challenge to develop a parallel set of behaviors desirable in such circumstances. This is a process that should start now. There will soon be a need for a safe, balanced, and reliable reporting infrastructure.
Why it's essential to study sex and gender, even as tensions rise

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01207-0

IF: 64.8

2024-05-02

Nature

Abstract:Some scholars are reluctant to research sex and gender out of fear that their studies will be misused. In a series of specially commissioned articles, Nature encourages scientists to engage. Some scholars are reluctant to research sex and gender out of fear that their studies will be misused. In a series of specially commissioned articles, Nature encourages scientists to engage.

multidisciplinary sciences
Voices in Methods Development

Polina Anikeeva,Edward Boyden,Clifford Brangwynne,Ibrahim I. Cissé,Oliver Fiehn,Petra Fromme,Anne-Claude Gingras,Casey S. Greene,Edith Heard,Stefan W. Hell,Elizabeth Hillman,Grant Jay Jensen,Rachel Karchin,Laura L. Kiessling,Benjamin P. Kleinstiver,Rob Knight,Philipp Kukura,Madeline A. Lancaster,Nicholas Loman,Loren Looger,Emma Lundberg,Qingming Luo,Atsushi Miyawaki,Eugene W. Myers Jr.,Garry P. Nolan,Paola Picotti,Wolf Reik,Markus Sauer,Alex K. Shalek,Jay Shendure,Nikolai Slavov,Amos Tanay,Olga Troyanskaya,David van Valen,Hong-Wei Wang,Chengqi Yi,Peng Yin,Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz,Xiaowei Zhuang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0585-6

IF: 48

2019-01-01

Nature Methods

Abstract:To mark the 15th anniversary of Nature Methods, we asked scientists from across diverse fields of basic biology research for their views on the most exciting and essential methodological challenges that their communities are poised to tackle in the near future.
Reshaping the publication process: Addiction Research and Theory joins Peer Community In Registered Reports

Charlotte R. Pennington,Derek Heim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2021.1931142

2021-06-01

Abstract:There is growing awareness of reproducibility concerns within the scientific literature; whilst journals continue to be filled with seemingly beautiful results, teams of researchers are lifting the lid on the veracity of scientific claims and the replicability of findings in a growing number of disciplines. Highlighting the global scale of this issue, the Open Science Collaboration (<a href="#">2015</a>) performed direct replications of 100 psychological research studies and found that whilst 97% of the original studies reported significant results, this declined to 36% for replications of these. Moreover, the average effect size of the replications was half the magnitude of the average across original studies. Several human decision-making factors have been proposed to underlie irreproducibility, such as selective reporting and questionable research practices (QRPs; Simmons et al. <a href="#">2011</a>; John et al. <a href="#">2012</a>) fueled by pressures to achieve novel, surprising results and incentive structures that reward quantity over quality (Giner-Sorolla <a href="#">2012</a>; Frith <a href="#">2020</a>; Munafò et al. <a href="#">2020</a>). As can be seen in <a href="#F0001">Figure 1</a>, there are many threats that can arise at each stage of the hypothetico-deductive scientific process, which can undermine the robustness of published research and constrain knowledge accumulation. In their 'manifesto for reproducible science', Munafò et al. (<a href="#">2017</a>) propose five measures that target these threats with the goal of improving research: (1) methods, (2) reporting and dissemination, (3) reproducibility, (4) evaluation, and (5) incentives. Adoption of open science practices will allow many of these measures to be achieved and calls for their implementation in addiction science are becoming louder (Heirene <a href="#">2021</a>; Louderback et al. <a href="#">2021</a>; Pennington et al. <a href="#">2021</a>). However, to be successful, academic journals also need to adapt and recentre their focus on scientific rigor rather than the metamorphosis of study results. In this Editorial, we introduce two types of Registered Reports (RRs) that satisfy all these measures and highlight our commitment by offering these publishing tracks to authors through ART. We first outline the 'traditional' RR format (which ART has offered since 2019) and its associated advantages, followed by the introduction of a new initiative launched in April 2021 – Peer Community In Registered Reports (PCI RR).

substance abuse,social issues
The Acid Test for Biological Science: STAP Cells, Trust, and Replication

Cheryl Lancaster

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9628-2

IF: 3.777

2015-02-04

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:In January 2014, a letter and original research article were published in Nature describing a process whereby somatic mouse cells could be converted into stem cells by subjecting them to stress. These “stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency” (STAP) cells were shown to be capable of contributing to all cell types of a developing embryo, and extra-embryonic tissues. The lead author of the publications, Haruko Obokata, became an overnight celebrity in Japan, where she was dubbed the new face of Japanese science. However, in the weeks that followed publication of the research, issues arose. Other laboratories and researchers (including authors on the original papers) found that they were unable to replicate Obokata et al.’s work. Closer scrutiny of the papers by the scientific community also suggested that there was manipulation of images that had been published, and Obokata was accused of misconduct. Those who should have been supervising her work (also her co-authors on the publications) were also heavily criticised. The STAP cell saga of 2014 is used as an example to highlight the importance of trust and replication in twenty-first century biological science. The role of trust in the scientific community is highlighted, and the effects on interactions between science and the public examined. Similarly, this essay aims to highlight the importance of replication, and how this is understood by researchers, the media, and the public. The expected behaviour of scientists in the twenty-first century is now more closely scrutinised.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Economists count the cost of 'risky' science

Chris Woolston

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00360-w

IF: 64.8

2024-02-07

Nature

Abstract:A survey seeks to define risk in research and how academics approach it in their work. A survey seeks to define risk in research and how academics approach it in their work.

multidisciplinary sciences
Far from idle: Four ways in which growing knowledge of the 'resting' brain is transforming our understanding of the causes of childhood disorder

Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12359

Abstract:Historians of science continue to debate the importance of individual inspiration and personal creativity as fuel in the engine of scientific progress. While true that, in general, scientific knowledge advances cautiously by careful experimentation, painstaking observation and the gradual accumulation of evidence occasionally a field of enquiry can be revolutionised by a single, perhaps simple, yet inspired and profound insight. Such breakthroughs are most likely to occur when an individual moves outside the intellectual tramlines that normally constrain scientific thinking, leaving them able to look at old evidence in new and original ways. The reception of such original insights by the research community varies considerably, of course. Some insights may be 'too original'--a step too far in what is normally an incremental journey of discovery. Some ideas, enthusiastically accepted initially, may burn out before making any real impression. Other ideas revolutionize a field--producing a cascade of hypotheses and lines of enquiry that lead to new discoveries which permanently change the scientific landscape. The issue of scientific creativity was very much in my mind when reading through the papers slated to appear in the current journal number. One article in particular, by Pannekoeke and colleagues on intrinsic brain organisation in depressed adolescents, initiated a chain of thought that led me to my focus for this editorial. A development that provides perhaps the most compelling recent example of the transformative power of individual inspiration in the field of cognitive neuroscience--a development which is also beginning to have profound implications for models of childhood mental disorders.
Dear researchers: send us your lab hacks

Jack Leeming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03217-4

IF: 64.8

2024-10-10

Nature

Abstract:Do you have a favourite tool or workaround that helps you save time, money or drudgery? Share it with Nature's readers. Do you have a favourite tool or workaround that helps you save time, money or drudgery? Share it with Nature's readers.

multidisciplinary sciences
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.

Why they take risks

Positive Deviance Underlies Successful Science: Normative Methodologies Risk Throwing out the Baby With the Bathwater

Rationalizing risk aversion in science: Why incentives to work hard clash with incentives to take risks

Rationalizing risk aversion in science

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

"Sometimes You Just Gotta Risk It for the Biscuit": A Portrait of Student Risk-Taking

Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

Scientific novelty beyond the experiment

Risk science applied to major risk events in history

Why (and how) we should publish negative data

Why publish? An interview study exploring patient innovators' reasons for and experiences of scientific publishing

Open Science Is Liberating and Can Foster Creativity

Five Things Not to Do When Discovering a Biosecurity Vulnerability

Why it's essential to study sex and gender, even as tensions rise

Voices in Methods Development

Reshaping the publication process: Addiction Research and Theory joins Peer Community In Registered Reports

The Acid Test for Biological Science: STAP Cells, Trust, and Replication

Economists count the cost of 'risky' science

Far from idle: Four ways in which growing knowledge of the 'resting' brain is transforming our understanding of the causes of childhood disorder

Dear researchers: send us your lab hacks

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