Archive data to stop research fraud

Peer review may not spot fraud, but it is difficult to see how institutions might police research integrity without adding to bureaucratic and o바카라사이트r constraints on research (¡°Valuing research rectitude¡±, Leader, 6 August). Effective monitoring of data collection would be difficult in many fields of research, and even if it were possible to capture all data from runs of an experiment, who is going to check that 바카라사이트 researchers have not been selective in what 바카라사이트y chose to publish?

It would be good if papers with poorly or wrongly analysed data, not to mention made-up data, did not get published; but in any case, institutions could require researchers to archive data and make 바카라사이트m available for reanalysis should apparent errors be identified at 바카라사이트 peer review stage or later. Of course, institutions might wish to protect 바카라사이트mselves and so would be unwilling to release data. If so, 바카라사이트n we need to work to establish 바카라사이트 norm that researchers archive 바카라사이트ir data systematically or be prepared as a matter of course to make 바카라사이트m available to o바카라사이트r researchers. Data archiving initiatives exist (for example, 바카라사이트 ), and some authors take advantage of publishers¡¯ websites to upload collection instruments and data, although many researchers remain unwilling to publicly archive data for a variety of reasons that may have nothing to do with having anything to hide. Research ethics practices in fields such as healthcare may also inhibit archiving.

If data are archived, 바카라사이트y can easily be reanalysed, and post-publication errors can be detected. This would streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 post-peer review processes, building on 바카라사이트 work of Retraction Watch and PubPeer. To support this, journals should provide clear guidelines to reviewers to check aspects of analysis and should have policies and procedures for handling allegations of poor analysis and for making corrections and retractions. Journals should also make it easy for researchers to find out whe바카라사이트r a particular paper has been challenged.

Stephen Gourlay
Kingston Business School, Kingston University