Nature Comment: Scientists being open about mistakes

[Simon]

The frequent unreliability of research remains a hot topic in the research world, as a new Comment piece(sorry, paywalled) in Nature shows:

Greater transparency about the scientific process and a closer focus on correcting defective data are the way forward, says Jim Woodgett. ...

These comments struck me as relevant to CFS research, though the author is arguing that they apply across all of life sciences:

The inherent uncertainty of research provides a safe haven for data omission, manipulation or exaggeration. Because interpretation of data is an imperfect science, there are few consequences for those tempted to oversell their findings. On the contrary, such faulty embellishment can help to determine whether a study is published — and where. Moreover, because failure to reproduce a published finding can be due to innocent factors, significant errors or falsehoods may be overlooked or simply pass unchallenged. As a result, modern science can churn out a flotsam of dead-end data that pollute the literature and waste precious resources.

He goes on to argue that there should be wider access to research (sadly doesn't apply to his paywalled comment!) and wider discussion of it too. Woodgett probably wasn't specifically thinking of the PR Reseach forum but it would likely fit with what he had in mind. He also argues that "barriers to correction of the public record should be low but rigorous", which is a very different attitude to that shown by some Journal editors and CFS researchers.

 

[Esther12]

Woodgett probably wasn't specifically thinking of the PR Reseach forum

I'm sure he wouldn't think of the contribution from CFS patients as a positive thing... we all know what they're like!

Ta for pointing this out Simon.