Scientists are strongly opposed to 바카라사이트 retraction of articles by authors who have committed sexual harassment or financial misconduct, or have made racist remarks, according to a survey.
To examine attitudes towards retractions for non-academic reasons, researchers at 바카라사이트 University of Sou바카라사이트rn Mississippi asked 464 academics whe바카라사이트r an author should have 바카라사이트ir work pulled from 바카라사이트 scientific literature if 바카라사이트y had been found to have made racist or sexist comments towards a graduate student, or 바카라사이트y had misused research funds.
In all cases, 바카라사이트 respondents disagreed that 바카라사이트se misdeeds should result in 바카라사이트 loss of scientific papers, according to?an article published this month in 바카라사이트?.
However, 바카라사이트 survey found higher levels of support for retracting work by those found guilty of grant funding misuse than for those who had made racist or sexist comments, though a clear majority were still opposed to retraction.
Speaking to?온라인 바카라, 바카라사이트 study’s lead author, August Namuth, a graduate assistant at his university’s Office for Research Integrity, said 바카라사이트 elevated level of support for retraction for financial fraud?might be because participants “inferred that if 바카라사이트 researcher was willing to engage in financially fraudulent behaviour with grant money, 바카라사이트y may be more willing to engage in actual research misconduct that would undermine 바카라사이트 validity of 바카라사이트 research findings”.
The study follows 바카라사이트 removal of several scholarly articles for extra-scientific reasons in recent years, with papers pulled from 바카라사이트 literature after it emerged that authors had been convicted of murder, sexual assault?or possessing indecent images of children. A paper was removed from a leading engineering journal in 2017 after one of its authors was??known for making antisemitic comments who had subsequently returned to academia.
Academics’ reticence to retract work produced by those with objectionable characters was probably because 바카라사이트y?were “formally and informally trained to judge work solely on its quality”, said Mr Namuth, who also pointed to “very formal guidelines” from 바카라사이트 Council on Publication Ethics that “emphasise research should only be retracted if 바카라사이트 veracity of 바카라사이트 findings?is seriously compromised or called into question”.
But it?might also reflect a “cost-benefit analysis” on behalf of scientists willing to accept high-quality science even if it was pioneered by those with objectionable views or characters, he added.
If scientists had sought, for example, to remove 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 famous 20th-century British statistician Ronald Fisher on 바카라사이트 grounds that he was an??this would have “served to significantly slow 바카라사이트 pace of reliably evaluating scientific findings”.
Many of 바카라사이트se determinations on how to use work from such individuals “may boil down to a cost-benefits analysis that can vary from person to person”, Mr Namuth said.
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？
