FANDOM


Arbeiten zu Fälschung und schlechter WissenschaftBearbeiten

PLoS oneBearbeiten

2011

  • PLoS one 29.11.2011: Quantifying Selective Reporting and the Proteus Phenomenon for Multiple Datasets with Similar Bias "Meta-analyses play an important role in synthesizing evidence from diverse studies and datasets that address similar questions. A major obstacle for meta-analyses arises from biases in reporting. In particular, it is speculated that findings which do not achieve formal statistical significance are less likely reported than statistically significant findings." (Thomas Pfeiffer, Lars Bertram, John P. A. Ioannidis)
  • PLoS one 08.09.2011: A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines "High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines." (Ana Marušić, Lana Bošnjak Ana Jerončić)
  • PLoS one 07.09.2011: Public Availability of Published Research Data in High-Impact Journals "A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement." (Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali, Waqas Qureshi, Mouaz H. Al-Mallah, John P. A. Ioannidis)
  • PLoS one 12.07.2011: An Empirical Analysis of Overlap Publication in Chinese Language and English Research Manuscripts "There are a number of sound justifications for publishing nearly identical information in Chinese and English medical journals, assuming several conditions are met. Although overlap publication is perceived as undesirable and ethically questionable in Europe and North America, it may serve an important function in some regions where English is not the native tongue" ( Joseph D. Tucker, Helena Chang, Allison Brandt, Xing Gao, Margaret Lin, Jing Luo, Philip Song, Kai Sun, Xiaoxi Zhang)

2010

  • PLoS one 14.10.2010: Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics "Ratings in journal peer review can be affected by sources of bias. The bias variable investigated here was the information on whether authors had suggested a possible reviewer for their manuscript, and whether the editor had taken up that suggestion or had chosen a reviewer that had not been suggested by the authors." (Lutz Bornmann, Hans-Dieter Daniel)
  • PLoS one 21.04.2010: Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data "The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis)." (Daniele Fanelli)
  • PLoS one 07.04.2010: “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences "The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the “hardness” of scientific research—i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors—is controversial." (Daniele Fanelli)

2009

  • PLoS one 21.07.2009: Does Publication in Top-Tier Journals Affect Reviewer Behavior? "We show that when ecologists act as reviewers their reported rejection rates recommended for manuscripts increases with their publication frequency in high impact factor journals. Rejection rate however does not relate to reviewer age." (Lonnie W. Aarssen, Christopher J. Lortie, Amber E. Budden, Julia Koricheva, Roosa Leimu, Tom Tregenza)
  • PLoS one 24.06.2009: Large-Scale Assessment of the Effect of Popularity on the Reliability of Research "Based on theoretical reasoning it has been suggested that the reliability of findings published in the scientific literature decreases with the popularity of a research field. Here we provide empirical support for this prediction." (Thomas Pfeiffer, Robert Hoffmann)
  • PLoS one 29.05.2009: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data "All the above estimates are calculated on the number of frauds that have been discovered and have reached the public domain. This significantly underestimates the real frequency of misconduct, because data fabrication and falsification are rarely reported by whistleblowers (see Results), and are very hard to detect in the data [10]. Even when detected, misconduct is hard to prove, because the accused scientists could claim to have committed an innocent mistake." (Daniele Fanelli)

2008

PLoS MEDICINEBearbeiten

2011

  • PLoS MEDICINE 13.12.2011: The Role of Group Dynamics in Scientific Inconsistencies: A Case Study of a Research Consortium "In October 2008, PLoS Medicine published a provocative paper by Young, Ioannidis, and Al-Ubaydi that discussed why current publication practices may distort science [1]. Based on economical insights and principles, Young and colleagues showed why and how the current system of publication provides an unrealistic picture of the data that are actually generated in scientific research. However, we believe that the problems they discussed arise not only at this macro level, but also at a lower aggregation level, that is, within research consortia" ( Judith G. M. Rosmalen, Albertine J. Oldehinkel)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 02.08.2011: Legal Remedies for Medical Ghostwriting: Imposing Fraud Liability on Guest Authors of Ghostwritten Articles "An especially problematic issue involves the industry practice of publishing studies prepared by hired medical writers but signed by academic “guest authors” who are invited to add their names without fulfilling authorship criteria. In this case, “guest authorship” is accompanied by “ghostwriting,” which occurs when a published article fails to acknowledge the original writer or writers' contributions [2]–[4]." (Simon Stern, Trudo Lemmens)

2010

  • PLoS MEDICINE 17.08.2010: The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study "Fallout from scientific misconduct can be pervasive. From the broadest perspective, the public, current and future patients, funding agencies, and even the course of research may be adversely affected by scientific misconduct. At the local level. members of the perpetrator's laboratory, colleagues, trainees, and the financial resources and reputation of the home institution may become tainted." (Arthur M. Michalek, Alan D. Hutson, Camille P. Wicher, Donald L. Trump)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 02.02.2010: Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States "Medical ghostwriting, the practice of pharmaceutical companies secretly authoring journal articles published under the byline of academic researchers, is a troubling phenomenon because it is dangerous to public health [1]. For example, ghostwritten articles on rofecoxib [2] probably contributed to “…lasting injury and even deaths as a result of prescribers and patients being misinformed about risks” [3]. (Jeffrey R. Lacasse, Jonathan Leo)

2009

  • PLoS MEDICINE 08.09.2009: Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got Bigger "If you are an editor, author, reviewer, or reader of medical journals, or if you depend on your doctor or health care provider getting unbiased information from medical journals, then the 1,500 documents now hosted on the PLoS Medicine Web site [1] should make you very concerned and angry." (The PLoS Medicine Editors)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 24.02.2009: An Unbiased Scientific Record Should Be Everyone's Agenda "Sometimes distortion of the scientific record may be limited in scope, relating to just one paper. But when a single company funds virtually an entire research agenda on a particular topic, there is the potential for wider and far more damaging distortion." (The PLoS Medicine Editors)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 03.02.2009: What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature? "Ghostwriting occurs when someone makes substantial contributions to a manuscript without attribution or disclosure. It is considered bad publication practice in the medical sciences, and some argue it is scientific misconduct. At its extreme, medical ghostwriting involves pharmaceutical companies hiring professional writers to produce papers promoting their products but hiding those contributions and instead naming academic physicians or scientists as the authors." (Peter C. Gøtzsche, Jerome P. Kassirer, Karen L. Woolley, Elizabeth Wager, Adam Jacobs, Art Gertel, Cindy Hamilton)

2008

  • PLoS MEDICINE 07.10.2008: Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science "This essay makes the underlying assumption that scientific information is an economic commodity, and that scientific journals are a medium for its dissemination and exchange. While this exchange system differs from a conventional market in many senses, including the nature of payments, it shares the goal of transferring the commodity (knowledge) from its producers (scientists) to its consumers (other scientists, administrators, physicians, patients, and funding agencies)." (Neal S. Young, John P. A. Ioannidis, Omar Al-Ubaydli)

2007

  • PLoS MEDICINE 25.09.2007: Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry? "In extreme cases, drug companies pay for trials by contract research organizations (CROs), analyze the data in-house, have professionals write manuscripts, ask academics to serve as authors of those manuscripts, and pay communication companies to shepherd them through publication in the best journals. The resulting articles affect the conclusions found in the medical literature, and are used in promoting drugs to doctors." (Sergio Sismondo)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 26.06.2007: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply To Goodman and Greenland "Scientific investigation is the noblest pursuit. I think we can improve the respect of the public for researchers by showing how difficult success is. Confidence in the research enterprise is probably undermined primarily when we claim that discoveries are more certain than they really are, and then the public, scientists, and patients suffer the painful refutations." (John P. A. Ioannidis)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 24.04.2007: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis "The paper offers useful guidance in a number of areas, calling attention to the importance of avoiding all forms of bias, of obtaining more empirical research on the prevalence of various forms of bias, and on the determinants of prior odds of hypotheses. But the claims that the model employed in this paper constitutes a “proof” that most published medical research claims are false, and that research in “hot” areas is most likely to be false, are unfounded." (Steven Goodman, Sander Greenland)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 06.03.2007: Selection in Reported Epidemiological Risks: An Empirical Assessment "Epidemiological studies may be subject to selective reporting, but empirical evidence thereof is limited. We empirically evaluated the extent of selection of significant results and large effect sizes in a large sample of recent articles." (Fotini K. Kavvoura, George Liberopoulos, John P. A. Ioannidis)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 27.02.2007:Most Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way "As part of the scientific enterprise, we know that replication—the performance of another study statistically confirming the same hypothesis—is the cornerstone of science and replication of findings is very important before any causal inference can be drawn." (Ramal Moonesinghe, Muin J. Khoury, A. Cecile J. W. Janssens)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 16.01.2007: Authors, Ghosts, Damned Lies, and Statisticians "Since the earliest peer-reviewed publications of the late 17th century, conventions about the authorship of scientific papers—which were generally anonymous and attributed to the sponsor (in those days, usually the church or the king)—have evolved considerably [1]. Readers now want to know not only who paid for the research but also who did the work." (Elizabeth Wager)

2005

  • PLoS MEDICINE 18.10.2005: Tackling Publication Bias in Clinical Trial Reporting "We and the international advisory board believe this new journal is an important step toward overcoming publication bias, whereby published research differs systematically from unpublished data in its direction and strength of findings." (Emma Veitch, The PLoS Medicine Editors)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 30.08.2005: Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing Uncertainty "Too often editors and reviewers reward only the cleanest results and the most straightforward conclusions. At PLoS Medicine, we seek to create a publication environment that is comfortable with uncertainty. We encourage authors to discuss biases, study limitations, and potential confounding factors. We acknowledge that most studies published should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, rather than conclusive. And we publish high-quality negative and confirmatory studies." (The PLoS Medicine Editors)
  • PLoS MEDICINE 30.08.2005: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False "There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field." (John P. A. Ioannidis)

JAMA Journal of the American Medical AssociationBearbeiten

  • jama.ama-assn.org 13.07.2005: Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research "It is important to evaluate the replication of clinical research studies that have the highest citation impact. How frequently are such studies eventually contradicted by other research or are found to have too strong results compared with subsequent evidence? Is this more common for specific types of studies? Answering these questions would be useful for interpreting the results of influential clinical research." (John. P. A. Ioannidis)

NIH Public AccessBearbeiten

  • nih.gov 29.06.2006: Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk About the Ethics of Research "Those concerned with protecting the integrity of science generally focus on the serious but rare infractions of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). While the violations of FFP are clear threats to the quality of scientific work and public trust in science, are they the behaviors that researchers themselves find most troubling?" (Raymond De Vries, Melissa S. Anderson, Brian C. Martinson)

Arbeiten zu Plagiaten und WissenschaftsbetrugBearbeiten

UniSA LibraryBearbeiten

  • International Journal for Educational Integrity Vol 1, No 1, 2005: Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective "Academic integrity is an issue of critical importance to academic institutions and has been gaining increasing interest among scholars in the last few decades. This article discusses data obtained over the last three years from over 80,000 students and 12,000 faculty in the United States and Canada. While documenting that cheating on tests and exams and plagiarism are significant issues on our college and university campuses, it also offers some thoughts on possible strategies to encourage greater levels of academic integrity among students." (Donald L. McCabe, PDF)

Texas Tech UniversityBearbeiten

  • TTU Ethics Center 07.2010: McCabe Academic Integrity Survey Report "During the spring 2010 semester, Texas Tech students and faculty were invited to participate in an academic integrity survey developed by Dr. Donald McCabe of Rutgers University. The participants were part of a nationwide survey of college students and faculty on the subject of academic integrity." (Devin DuPree, Sabrina Sattler)

Oklahoma State UniversityBearbeiten

  • OSU 2009: Selected Undergraduate Student Results. 2009 Survey of Academic Integrity. "The Center for Academic Integrity conducted a survey that assessed Oklahoma State University’s students’, teaching assistants' (TAs) and faculty members’ perceptions of the academic environment, the extent of academic misconduct, and attitudes related to academic integrity. The survey was administered by Dr. Don McCabe at Rutgers University." (Donald McCabe, The Center for Academic Integrity)

Midwestern State UniversityBearbeiten

  • MSU Vol. 5 2006: Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs: Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action "Understanding cheating among graduate busi- ness students is important because these students are tomorrow’s business leaders. In addition, in light of recent scandals in corporations, business schools have been searching for ways to send stu- dents the message that ethics is important." (Donald L.McCabe, Kenneth D. Butterfield, Linda Klebe Trevino)

MiddleburyBearbeiten

Deutsche ForschungsarbeitenBearbeiten

2008

2007

2006

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

Auch bei FANDOM

Zufälliges Wiki