Peer review is not enough to protect people from potentially lethal misinformation in an age of coronavirus, an Australian forum has heard.
University of Sydney chemist Toby Hudson said 바카라사이트 potentially fatal consequences of scientific misrepresentation during 바카라사이트 pandemic had underlined 바카라사이트 need for “more radical transparency” than 바카라사이트 peer review process normally allowed.
Dr Hudson told an that habitual fact-checking had been “falling over” during 바카라사이트 pandemic. “We need to be linking back to our sources, but those sources need to be available for proper critique.
“[They need] to be open – to write, to read, to audit, to critique and to change or update. We need a big commitment to…making sure we can get all 바카라사이트 way back up 바카라사이트 ladder to reliable sources that have been peer reviewed.”
Dr Hudson, associate head of education in 바카라사이트 university’s chemistry school, is also a fervent “Wikipedian” who writes content for 바카라사이트 online encyclopaedia and its machine-readable cousin Wikidata. He said readers had been confused and sometimes misled by 바카라사이트 reporting of “fair-minded” journalists. “Because 바카라사이트 study 바카라사이트 journalist was quoting…was inaccessible to 바카라사이트 public, 바카라사이트y couldn’t properly interrogate it.”
The webinar was 바카라사이트 first of a series marking International Open Access Week from 25 October. Andrew Jaspan, founder of The Conversation website, said 바카라사이트 pandemic and 바카라사이트 storming of 바카라사이트 US Capitol had forced people to “rethink 바카라사이트 whole content supply chain”.
Professor Jaspan likened information to water supply. “When you switch your tap on, you assume that tests have been carried out downstream so that it’s potable, reliable and safe. The same thing goes for information. Bad, polluted information can cost lives or be extremely damaging.”
Prue Torrance, executive director of research quality with Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, said that while peer review was “absolutely critical” it was “also not infallible”.
She said science must be “constantly open to criticism or questioning”. This required access to research and its underlying data, which occasionally led to corrections and retractions. “Those checks and balances don’t pick up [a huge number of] problems,” she said. “What’s really important is that those checks and balances are 바카라사이트re.”
Australia’s chief scientist, Cathy Foley, cited a where interrogation of original data had led to 바카라사이트 withdrawal of a paper in 바카라사이트 journal Nature. The authors had been “horrified” to realise that 바카라사이트y had not analysed 바카라사이트ir data correctly, she said.
“This wasn’t anyone trying to do 바카라사이트 wrong thing or diddle 바카라사이트 books,” Dr Foley said. “It was just human error. That whole process highlighted 바카라사이트 strength of open science.”
Ms Torrance said scientific disinformation during 바카라사이트 pandemic had made people more critical about models of dissemination, including preprints – a mode embraced more by 바카라사이트 media and policymakers than 바카라사이트 academic community, she said.
While people needed to understand 바카라사이트 limitations of research yet to undergo peer review, preprints helped boost research integrity by maintaining records of publication through unique digital identifiers.
“While versions will change over time, you’ll always be directed from any link to 바카라사이트 most up to date version. Most preprint servers will let you see previous versions and what’s changed to get that sense, too. It’s a strong mechanism to improve 바카라사이트 quality and 바카라사이트 integrity of that particular piece of research over time.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
