The High Tech War on Science Fraud

[Daisymay]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science

The High Tech War on Science Fraud

The problem of fake data may go far deeper than scientists admit. Now a team of researchers has a controversial plan to root out perpetrators .

By Stephen Buranyi

Wednesday 1 February 2017 06.00 GMT

 

[Snowdrop]

A few stand out lines from the article for me:

" but some scientists saw it as a new form of scrutiny and suspicion, portending a future in which the objective authority of peer review would be undermined by unaccountable and uncredentialed critics."

Oh yeah, we know just how objective peer review is. Although they do rely on authority for cover.

In reference to a researcher (Stapel) who faked his data:

"Van Assen had never much liked Stapel, believing that he relied more on the force of his personality than reason when running the department. “Some people believe him charismatic,” Van Assen told me. “I am less sensitive to it.”

 

[TiredSam]

Excellent article. Bring it on .

 

[alex3619]

Science has to be transparent. There needs to be a big change in how science is conducted. All data needs to be public. There can be no exceptions except for sensitive technological studies, such as military research.

Biomedicine definitely has problems. Biopsychosocial medicine, in my view, makes the problems in biomedicine look minor. Ditto psychological psychiatry.

 

[Large Donner]

" but some scientists saw it as a new form of scrutiny and suspicion, portending a future in which the objective authority of peer review would be undermined by unaccountable and uncredentialed critics."

How exactly do you objectively peer review and pass for publication a paper that uses subjective outcome measures whilst still qualifying the above quote that terminates by claiming critique from non peer reviewers is the identified problem.

 

[alex3619]

critique from non peer reviewers

Potentially non peer reviewers. They might have better credentials than the paper authors. The problem is they might not be identifiable. Yet this is exactly what happens with reviewers for publication. They are usually not public. So how can anyone judge their capacity to properly review a particular paper?