1 / 27

Data deposition as a measure to prevent and to detect scientific misconduct

This workshop presentation discusses the importance of depositing original data when submitting scientific manuscripts to prevent and detect scientific misconduct. Two case studies are presented, highlighting the need for transparency and data integrity in scholarly communication.

ehering
Download Presentation

Data deposition as a measure to prevent and to detect scientific misconduct

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CERN workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication (OAI6) Geneva, June 17 – 19, 2009 Data deposition as a measure to prevent and to detect scientific misconduct Alexander Lerchl School of Engineering and Science Jacobs University Bremen a.lerchl@jacobs-university.de

  2. The REFLEX Project • Funded by the European Commission • 2000 – 2004, ~ 3 M€ budget • 12 research groups from 7 European countries • Coordinator: Franz Adlkofer, Munich (Verum Foundation) • 8 Publications from Austria (Medical University Vienna)

  3. The First Case: Diem et al., 2005

  4. Huge Effects on DNA Molecules and Extremely Low Standard Deviations

  5. A Letter-to-the-Editor, Vijayalaxmi et al., 2006

  6. ...

  7. The Reply: Rüdiger et al., 2006

  8. Original data! n = 2 for all means!

  9. Last digit preference! Out of 48 last digits: 2: 14 times 5: 2 times p<0.001

  10. Variations lower than theoretical limits!

  11. Coefficients of variation always lower than 5%. Accuracy of the method ~ 25%! 24 average values each: n=2

  12. What did Mutation Research do? • Nothing.

  13. The Second Case: Schwarz et al., 2008 Online February 2008

  14. Again: Huge Effects and Negligible Standard Deviations

  15. Coefficients of Variation • Sham exposed: 3.9% • Negative controls: 4.1% • Exposed: 2.6%(at 25% variations of the SAR values!!) • Positive controls: 1.2%

  16. Please keep in mind: n=3!

  17. Two Fortunate Coincidences 1) The discovery of Christian Wolf 2) The discovery of a student

  18. The Discovery of Wolf: How to Unblind the Exposure System

  19. The Discovery of the Student: Hidden Data The student: „Just do a right-click on the graph, and open the Excel sheet. The original data are then visible“. So I did ....

  20. n = 12, and not n = 3 ! So, n = 12, and not n = 3!

  21. Calculated “Raw“ Data

  22. What did Int Arch Occup Health do? • (Almost) Nothing.

  23. Reactions of the Medical University Vienna • In three press releases, the University called the data “fabricated“ • They informed the journals accordingly

  24. Outlook • None of the papers in question (altogether eight) has been retracted (so far). • For example:

  25. Outlook • COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is currently considering a complaint against the journals [Mutation Research and IAEOH] to investigate whether they followed COPE's recommended procedures.

  26. Conclusions • These cases highlight the need for deposition of original data when a manuscript is submitted in order to make investigations possible if suspicions about the scientific integrity of submitted or published articles arise. This is of particular importance for papers dealing with topics of potential public concerns.

  27. Thank you for Your Attention!Questions?

More Related