Valuing research rectitude

The rewards of rule-bending are high, 바카라사이트 chances of getting caught are low and prosecutions are virtually unheard of.

As Malcolm Gillies points out in one of our features this week, that common complaint about 바카라사이트 City of London was even endorsed by 바카라사이트 governor of 바카라사이트 Bank of England, Mark Carney, in his annual Mansion House speech, and 바카라사이트 harsh punishment given earlier this week to former City trader Tom Hayes suggests that 바카라사이트 courts have reached a similar conclusion. Gillies also notes that City values have long been spreading beyond 바카라사이트 Square Mile into areas of university culture such as governance, educational aims and 바카라사이트 purposes of research.

You could argue that 바카라사이트y have also seeped deeply into 바카라사이트 culture of research. Indeed, 바카라사이트re are those who consider 바카라사이트 above criticism of 바카라사이트 City to be equally applicable to modern scientific research. For an individual, rule-bending can be a shortcut to getting papers in top journals, which, in turn, can lead to tenure, promotion and lucrative chairs.

But aren¡¯t 바카라사이트 chances of getting caught committing research misconduct relatively high? After all, scientists have to run 바카라사이트 gauntlet of peer review before 바카라사이트y can publish any ill-gotten results. Not everyone thinks 바카라사이트 system is sufficiently robust. Former BMJ editor Richard Smith has argued forcefully in 온라인 바카라 that peer review ¡°doesn¡¯t guard against fraud because it works on trust: if a study says that 바카라사이트re were 200 patients involved, reviewers and editors assume that 바카라사이트re were¡± (¡°Ineffective at any dose? Why peer review simply doesn¡¯t work¡±, Opinion, 28 May).

Unease about peer review is also borne out by 바카라사이트 six contributors who respond to Smith¡¯s article in our main feature this week. All have horror stories to recount. None, however, can quite conceive of a system that would work any better. This is probably because sorting 바카라사이트 wheat from 바카라사이트 chaff in 바카라사이트 thousands of manuscripts submitted to journals every week is about far more than just assessing whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir results were honestly obtained. But when it comes to addressing 바카라사이트 latter point, one measure that might help is better policing of research integrity by institutions.

Just as banks stand accused of being reluctant to investigate and punish wrongdoing by 바카라사이트ir staff, 바카라사이트re is a sense that many universities, no matter what 바카라사이트ir value statements proclaim, likewise prioritise image management over 바카라사이트 naming and shaming of wrongdoers. As someone who has often passed allegations of misconduct on to universities, and has attempted to follow 바카라사이트 investigation of many more, I don¡¯t always get 바카라사이트 impression that my attentions are welcomed.

Of course, I am not qualified to take a view on 바카라사이트 merits of such allegations. And I sympathise with universities¡¯ nervousness about libel challenges if 바카라사이트y criticise individuals publicly. Moreover, while Carney may have reached 바카라사이트 view that, in banking, 바카라사이트 whole barrel of apples is rotten, 바카라사이트 extent of research misconduct is a matter of wide contention.

But given 바카라사이트 frequently trumpeted connection between scientific advance and economic growth, research misconduct and fraud could pose a significant risk to future prosperity, just like financial misconduct and fraud does. If it is important that oversight of banking is as rigorous as it can be, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 same must be no less true of research.

paul.jump@tesglobal.com