1 / 7

Scientists behaving badly Nature - 9 June issue

Scientists behaving badly Nature - 9 June issue. ~~~~~ B. Martinson, M. Anderson & R. de Vries ~~~~~. Definition. Serious: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism -> hurts one's career (Sch ö n at Bell labs in 2002) Carelessness: misconduct -> challenges our privilege of self-regulation.

ethel
Download Presentation

Scientists behaving badly Nature - 9 June issue

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. Scientists behaving badlyNature - 9 June issue ~~~~~B. Martinson, M. Anderson & R. de Vries ~~~~~

  2. Definition • Serious: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism-> hurts one's career(Schön at Bell labs in 2002) • Carelessness: misconduct-> challenges our privilege of self-regulation

  3. The Experiment • Anonymous e-mail survey randomly send to scientists from the National Institutes of Health • Questions regarding behaviour in the last 3 years • ~3000 replies • Two groups of respondents: post-doc and faculty • Two classes of questions: serious misbehaviour and carelessness

  4. The Questions • Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research • Overlooking other's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data • Inappropriately assigning authorship credit • Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate • Inadequate record keeping related to research projects

  5. The Results • Less than 1.5% admitted to falsification or plagiarism • 15.5% changed the design, methodology or results of a study because of funding source • 27.5% reported inadequate record keeping • Overall, 33% engaged in at least one of the 10 most serious offences • Proportion higher in older group

  6. Why? • There is no historical study of misconducts in science • Pressure to obtain results for fundings/jobs • Danger of assessing quality of a scientist based on:- number of publications- publication rate (astro-ph)

  7. What can we astronomers do? • Acknowledge appropriately contributions (i.e. students, seniors...) • As an author: make sure your work is reproducible. Up to date book keeping. • As a referee/editor: prevent plagiarism and duplication • Foster anonymity: for publications (referee and authors), for observational proposals?

More Related