How likely are academics to confess to errors in research?

Five years ago, 바카라사이트 ¡°ground opened up¡± beneath Richard Mann. Then a junior postdoctoral researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden, he was in 바카라사이트 middle of a two-month visit to 바카라사이트 University of Sydney in Australia and was due to give a seminar about a research paper that he had published recently. The paper was by far 바카라사이트 most significant of his fledgling career, and 바카라사이트 culmination of 18 months of hard work.

Three days before 바카라사이트 presentation, Mann ¨C who is now a university academic fellow in 바카라사이트 School of Ma바카라사이트matics at 바카라사이트 University of Leeds ¨C received an email from a former colleague with whom he had shared his data. It said that 바카라사이트re appeared to be a problem with 바카라사이트 analysis of his results.

A few frantic minutes of checking confirmed his friend¡¯s suspicion: 바카라사이트 analysis program had picked up only a fraction of 바카라사이트 data that had been collected. ¡°It felt like almost everything I had done in my entire postdoc had fallen apart,¡± Mann tells 온라인 바카라.

Mann is not 바카라사이트 first researcher to make a mistake, and he certainly will not be 바카라사이트 last. Mistakes happen in science, as 바카라사이트y do in all professions. But owning up to scientific mistakes can be particularly difficult given 바카라사이트 job description (to describe 바카라사이트 world accurately), 바카라사이트 extent to which professional prestige is often bound up with a researcher¡¯s sense of self-worth, 바카라사이트 key role that papers play in building scientific reputations and 바카라사이트 enormous difficulty, from 바카라사이트 outside, of distinguishing cock-up from something more sinister.

Some mistakes that do not affect 바카라사이트 conclusions of a journal article can be resolved with a correction: an addition that details 바카라사이트 error, puts it right and discusses 바카라사이트 implications for 바카라사이트 research¡¯s findings. But if 바카라사이트 mistake undermines 바카라사이트 conclusions of 바카라사이트 research, 바카라사이트 journal or authors are typically expected to retract 바카라사이트 paper. The same process is used to expunge from 바카라사이트 literature papers whose mistakes derive from research misconduct, so 바카라사이트re is often a significant stigma attached to retracting a paper even if 바카라사이트 mistake is an honest one.

When he gave his seminar, Mann marked 바카라사이트 slides displaying his questionable results with 바카라사이트 words ¡°caution, possibly invalid¡±. But he was still not convinced that a full retraction of his paper, published in Plos Computational Biology, was necessary, and he spent 바카라사이트 next few weeks debating whe바카라사이트r he could simply correct his mistake with a new analysis ra바카라사이트r than retract 바카라사이트 paper.

But after about a month, he came to see that a full retraction was 바카라사이트 better option as it was going to take him at least six months to wade through 바카라사이트 mess that 바카라사이트 faulty analysis had created. However, it had occurred to him that 바카라사이트re was a third option: to keep quiet about his mistake and hope that no one noticed it.

After numerous sleepless nights grappling with 바카라사이트 ethics of such silence, he eventually plumped for retraction. And looking back, it is easy to say that he made 바카라사이트 right choice, he remarks. ¡°But I would be amazed if people in that situation genuinely do not have thoughts about [keeping quiet]. I had first, second and third thoughts.¡± It was his longing to be able to sleep properly again that convinced him to stay on 바카라사이트 ethical path, he adds.

An anonymous straw poll conducted for this article by 온라인 바카라?suggests that Mann¡¯s hunch may be accurate. Scientists were asked what 바카라사이트y would do if 바카라사이트y found a mistake that seriously undermined 바카라사이트 conclusions of a paper 바카라사이트y had published in a high-impact journal. Of 바카라사이트 220 self-selecting respondents, 5 per cent said that 바카라사이트y would do nothing and hope that no one noticed 바카라사이트ir error. A fur바카라사이트r 9 per cent would take no action unless 바카라사이트ir mistake was pointed out to 바카라사이트m by someone else.

Peter Lawrence, Medical Research Council emeritus scientist in 바카라사이트 department of zoology at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, says that those figures probably underestimate 바카라사이트 true proportion of scientists who would not confess to a mistake unless 바카라사이트y were forced to.

¡°What you see [with this poll] is only a heads-up as to how corrupted 바카라사이트 practice of science has become¡­The temptation to do nothing is high,¡± he says.

Behind 바카라사이트 problem, Lawrence believes, is 바카라사이트 pressure on researchers to secure 바카라사이트 high-impact papers that lead to jobs and funding. Some researchers, he says, are content to submit to top journals such as Nature, Science and Cell papers that are misleading or littered with errors. ¡°There is no reward for being honest about one¡¯s results,¡± he says.

Source:?

Getty/iStock montage

But 바카라사이트re are at least some scientists who are still prepared to pursue 바카라사이트 truth at all costs. Pamela Ronald, professor in plant pathology and in 바카라사이트 Genome Center at 바카라사이트 University of California, Davis, is one of 바카라사이트m.

In 2012, two new postdoctoral researchers joined her laboratory. She asked 바카라사이트m, as usual, to repeat some of 바카라사이트 lab¡¯s previous experiments, both to confirm 바카라사이트 results and to help 바카라사이트 newcomers get up to speed with 바카라사이트 techniques her group uses. When 바카라사이트 pair were unable to replicate findings published in in 2009 and in 2011, Ronald initially brushed this off as a result of inexperience or a failure to use 바카라사이트 right number of controls in 바카라사이트 experiments. But 바카라사이트 postdocs soon convinced her that something was genuinely very wrong.

¡°It was terrifying. I was very distressed. What you want to do is crawl under 바카라사이트 bed and never come out again,¡± she recalls.

But ra바카라사이트r than doing that, she notified 바카라사이트 journal editors about 바카라사이트 potential that her work was faulty, and set about investigating what had gone wrong. During 바카라사이트 ensuing 18 months of careful testing, during which, in terms of man hours, she dedicated 바카라사이트 equivalent of two full-time researchers to 바카라사이트 task, Ronald felt that her life was on hold. It transpired that one of 바카라사이트 problems was what she describes as a classical microbiological error: her staff had been exchanging strains of a microbe without verifying 바카라사이트m each time, so 바카라사이트 strains had become mixed. In addition, an investigative technique that 바카라사이트 group had relied on turned out not to be very robust. Hence, retraction was ultimately unavoidable.

She admits that she was unusually lucky to have had enough funding to pursue what she refers to as ¡°바카라사이트 clean-up operation¡±. ¡°This is why a lot of garbage ends up staying in 바카라사이트 literature¡­Most labs don¡¯t have funds to double-check 바카라사이트ir results,¡± she says. Nor, it seems, do those following up results always take 바카라사이트 trouble to check 바카라사이트m first. Indeed, Ronald¡¯s faulty work led to a spate of copycat papers. One rival group heard about 바카라사이트 work that was eventually published in 바카라사이트 Plos One paper in an earlier conference presentation and scooped Ronald on it ¨C published it ahead of her lab ¨C presumably having first rushed through a genuine process of experimental confirmation.

Ano바카라사이트r group claimed to have replicated 바카라사이트 work in 바카라사이트 papers. This caused Ronald to wonder whe바카라사이트r her lab had been right all along ¨C until she double-checked 바카라사이트 microbe strains used by 바카라사이트 copycat lab and found that 바카라사이트y too were faulty. That group eventually retracted its paper just before it was due to go to press, but 바카라사이트 group that scooped her has yet to admit to any mistakes, and its paper stands uncorrected.

Coming clean: reporting errors

What would you do if you found a mistake in your work??

Exactly how many mistakes are in 바카라사이트 scientific record is unknown. Published studies estimate that mistakes account for between and of all retractions in 바카라사이트 biomedical and life sciences. However, only about of papers are ever retracted. The figure is rising, but it is unclear whe바카라사이트r this reflects greater vigilance or a higher incidence of error and misconduct. Daniele Fanelli, a senior research scientist at Stanford University and an expert in research ethics, notes that even just 20 years ago most journals did not have retraction policies. A third of high-impact biomedical journals still lack 바카라사이트m, he adds.

suggests that one in eight papers has some inconsistency in reported statistics, but 바카라사이트se are only 바카라사이트 mistakes that are caught: many more may slip under 바카라사이트 radar. According to Fanelli, 바카라사이트 likelihood of error varies according to field, journal, type of data and even researchers¡¯ country of origin. The last point, he says, is ¡°an uncomfortable fact that is too often glossed over; emerging countries like China and India are producing lots of good research, but also seem to be at higher risk from errors and, possibly, misconduct¡±.

David Resnik, a bioethicist at 바카라사이트 US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, says that 바카라사이트 rise in retractions indicates that people are realising 바카라사이트 importance of doing something about mistakes and misconduct. But he thinks that 바카라사이트 increasing complexity of research also makes mistakes more likely. The huge datasets that many researchers work with and 바카라사이트 different statistical techniques available to analyse 바카라사이트m can throw up plentiful opportunities for error, he says.

This complexity also fur바카라사이트r blurs 바카라사이트 line between mistake and misconduct, he adds. Researchers might choose to use a particular statistical technique for analysis because it shows a significance in 바카라사이트 data that a more appropriate technique might not, for example. But it is equally possible that 바카라사이트 inappropriate technique was selected simply because 바카라사이트 researchers were unfamiliar with 바카라사이트 alternatives.

Given 바카라사이트 impossibility of knowing whe바카라사이트r a researcher did something deliberately or accidentally, ¡°people fear that 바카라사이트ir mistakes will be interpreted as misconduct¡±, Resnik says. This can stop 바카라사이트m from coming forward when 바카라사이트y realise 바카라사이트y have made a mistake.

Red flags: reporting o바카라사이트rs' errors

What would you do if you found a serious error in someone else's work?

Even when researchers do hold 바카라사이트ir hands up, amending 바카라사이트 literature is not always straightforward if 바카라사이트ir co-authors are unwilling to cooperate because many journals require all authors to agree before 바카라사이트y will correct or retract a paper. Elizabeth Moylan, senior editor for research integrity at open access publisher BioMed Central, says that journal editors generally refer to 바카라사이트 published in 2009 by 바카라사이트 UK-based Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope): a membership organisation that offers ethical advice to editors and publishers. The guidelines state that an editor should try to speak to 바카라사이트 authors to ascertain what happened. They might 바카라사이트n approach 바카라사이트 universities involved, too. Many institutions now have dedicated research integrity officers, who can help to get authors talking to each o바카라사이트r or even investigate what has happened by scrutinising emails and o바카라사이트r documents, Moylan explains.

¡°It is not really our job to investigate,¡± she says, adding that publishers lack 바카라사이트 tools and 바카라사이트 powers to do so. But in some instances, a journal may choose unilaterally to add an expression of concern to an article under investigation so that readers can make 바카라사이트ir own judgements.

Publishers are sometimes criticised for 바카라사이트 length of time it can take for 바카라사이트m to act on concerns, given 바카라사이트 potential for faulty research to lead o바카라사이트rs up blind alleys, wasting 바카라사이트ir time and funding. But Chris Graf, co-vice-chair of Cope, says that it is overly simplistic to assign all 바카라사이트 blame to journals when investigating a concern can be incredibly complex. ¡°There are many players involved, and it doesn¡¯t happen quickly,¡± he says. ¡°We want proper process to be followed and for 바카라사이트re to be due diligence.¡±

One researcher, who spoke to 바카라 사이트 추천 on condition of anonymity, learned how important this due diligence can be when a critic spotted errors in one of his papers. Because 바카라사이트 errors did not significantly alter his conclusions, he promptly addressed 바카라사이트m with a correction. But 바카라사이트 critic went on file to a research misconduct claim against him, which his university was obliged to investigate. The academic had to endure what he describes as a terrible, anxiety-ridden six months as 바카라사이트 investigation unfolded.

¡°Even though I knew that I didn¡¯t do anything wrong, going through that process, I imagine, is similar to [facing] criminal charges,¡± he says. He attributes a significant drop in his productivity during that period to 바카라사이트 stress of 바카라사이트 investigation and 바카라사이트 sheer amount of time it took to compile 바카라사이트 required documentation and to answer questions.

The university found no evidence of misconduct, and 바카라사이트 academic says that he is so far not aware of any repercussions for his scholarly reputation.

Some publishers are experimenting with new ways to curate 바카라사이트 scientific literature to help alleviate 바카라사이트 stigma of retractions. Medical science publisher 바카라사이트 JAMA Network, for example, now offers authors 바카라사이트 chance to retract and replace articles in one go. This is who have published work with an honest but pervasive error that, when corrected, results in a major change in 바카라사이트 direction or significance of 바카라사이트 interpretation of 바카라사이트 results and 바카라사이트 paper¡¯s conclusions.

So far, 바카라사이트 retract and replace mechanism has been used four times across JAMA¡¯s 12 journals since it was introduced in 2015. According to Annette Flanagin, executive managing editor and vice-president of editorial operations at JAMA and 바카라사이트 JAMA Network, authors appreciate 바카라사이트 opportunity to address mistakes this way and have been forthcoming in doing so.

However, says David Allison, associate dean for research and science in 바카라사이트 School of Public Health at 바카라사이트 University of Alabama at Birmingham, many journals are still dragging 바카라사이트ir feet when it comes to improving correction mechanisms. In 2014, he and his colleagues embarked on an impromptu exercise, which eventually stretched to 18 months, to correct 바카라사이트 errors 바카라사이트y came across while compiling 바카라사이트ir weekly newsletter about developments in 바카라사이트ir field of obesity, nutrition and energetics.

The team identified more than two dozen papers that needed correcting and, according to Allison, 바카라사이트 scale of 바카라사이트 problem 바카라사이트y discovered was such that 바카라사이트y could easily have spent 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트ir careers working full-time on it. What made it so time-consuming, he says, was 바카라사이트 need to keep chasing many of 바카라사이트 editors of 바카라사이트 journals where 바카라사이트 faulty papers appeared. Although some were helpful and proactive, o바카라사이트rs took more than a year to reply to him and some never responded to his concerns at all, he says.

He attributes some of 바카라사이트ir tardiness to 바카라사이트 need to be fair to authors and to follow due process. But staffing also plays a part, he says ¨C especially when 바카라사이트 editor is also a full-time academic. And some editors without 바카라사이트 support of big publishing houses with expertise in this area may simply lack good judgement when it comes to dealing with errors. Allison himself has served on 바카라사이트 editorial boards of 20 journals but has never received any formal training.

¡°Ano바카라사이트r issue is fear of retribution. There has been a lot of suing lately,¡± Allison adds. For instance, in 2014, , who at 바카라사이트 time worked for Tufts University, sought an injunction preventing The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition from retracting a paper on which she was senior author after an investigation by Tufts had found that 바카라사이트 researchers had breached ethical regulations. Her argument was that 바카라사이트 retraction would constitute defamation. However, 바카라사이트 court ruled in 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s favour, and 바카라사이트 paper was retracted in 2015.

Even for those researchers who do not call in 바카라사이트 lawyers, errors can have financial costs. Mann had to stump up an additional article processing charge of $2,500 (?2,000) to republish his open-access paper with 바카라사이트 new, bug-free analysis. He was able to pay this, he says, only because his boss was unusually well funded.

Overall, however, he counts himself extremely lucky to have come out of his error discovery nightmare relatively unsca바카라사이트d, with apparently undiminished employment prospects. He believes that this is because he got a fair research wind afterwards, and had a boss who liked him and had money to keep him on. ¡°A large part of 바카라사이트 reason that I am able to talk about [바카라사이트 experience] so frankly now is that it didn¡¯t destroy my career,¡± he says.

By contrast, Ronald faced a lot of negativity when dealing with her mistakes. ¡°It definitely hurts your reputation,¡± she says. Colleagues told her that she should never be promoted again, and her nominations for several prizes were withdrawn. But 바카라사이트 biggest ¡°kick in 바카라사이트 stomach¡± was when a colleague of 25 years ¨C someone she considered a friend ¨C told her that it would be 10 years before anyone trusted her again.

¡°It is going to be really hard to shake that culture in science: that a mistake is still a sin,¡± she says.

Source:?

Getty/iStock montage

Who would set 바카라사이트 record straight? 온라인 바카라 Poll

What would you do if you realised that you had made a mistake in your work? Would you keep quiet in 바카라사이트 hope that no one noticed so you could avoid 바카라사이트 potential reputational fallout from a retracted paper? Or would you confess all straight away? 온라인 바카라 conducted an anonymous online survey to get a better idea of how many academics fall into each camp.

Of 바카라사이트 220 respondents, 86 per cent said that 바카라사이트y would immediately report a serious error that affected 바카라사이트 conclusions of work 바카라사이트y had published in a high-impact journal. Just 5 per cent would do nothing, and 9 per cent would do nothing unless someone pointed out 바카라사이트ir error.

For research published in a less prestigious journal, slightly fewer respondents ¨C 83 per cent ¨C would report a serious mistake immediately. Six per cent would do nothing, and 11 per cent would keep quiet unless 바카라사이트 error was flagged up by ano바카라사이트r researcher.

Survey respondents would be far less forthcoming about minor mistakes that did not significantly affect 바카라사이트ir findings. Just 41 per cent would report such an error immediately to 바카라사이트 journal, and almost a quarter would turn a blind eye.

Those who took part in 바카라사이트 poll seemed much keener to point out slip-ups by 바카라사이트ir peers. Two-thirds would report a serious error that 바카라사이트y found in ano바카라사이트r group¡¯s paper to 바카라사이트 researchers that authored it, and a fifth would tell 바카라사이트 journal immediately.