SoylentNews

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes:

████ # This file was generated bot-o-matically! Edit at your own risk. ████

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes in with an IRC submission for RandomFactor:

Better (publishing) background checks: A way toward greater integrity in science [retractionwatch.com]:

Science represents perhaps the single greatest accomplishment of humankind. Of all human institutions, organisations and establishments, science has proven an effective tool for driving progress. It is inherently self-correcting, and tolerates — and even demands — skepticism, challenge and self-critique. Few human institutions can make a similar claim.

However, there is increasing recognition and concern that current research incentives are perverse, and promote behaviors that undermine the very foundations of science. Under the guise of altruism and independence, the self-serving, self-promoting nature of academic science today is typically neither declared nor acknowledged. The dispassionate, objective analysis and presentation of data is frequently lost, as results are seen as personal (“my data”) and subservient to a personal or political agenda. As a consequence, scientists are losing their authority to speak, genuine experts are often disparaged and ignored, and our society is diminished.

This situation is not new. In his prescient farewell address [ourdocuments.gov] in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower acknowledged “a revolution in the conduct of research” and observed that the pursuit of taxpayer funding sources for researchers might become “a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and expressed his concern regarding “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment … and the power of money.”

Sadly, we have seen that concern play out as researchers chase a publication in a high-impact factor journal, to secure the next federal grant, to generate the next high-impact factor paper, to secure the next grant, and so the cycle continues. Too often, scientific self-preservation substitutes for intellectual curiosity.

Currently, publication in a high-impact factor journal is taken as evidence of scientific success and accomplishment. Furthermore, a high-impact factor paper is accepted as evidence of scientific quality. Sadly, neither is true. Unfortunately, with publication in a high-impact factor journal there is no requirement that the work is independently validated, no requirement that the work is robust, no requirement that it will stand the test of time. In fact, no metric exists for scientific quality.

As a result, the monitoring of retracted publications assumes great importance as a ‘safety check’: The retraction provides evidence that a piece of work was flawed and should not be considered a foundation upon which others can build. This offers an important insight into the quality of scientific effort of individuals or institutions – it is a key metric that often appears to be ignored.

At the outset, it is important to note that all retracted publications are not equal — some retractions reflect well on investigators who recognize and acknowledge a mistake, and retract an erroneous publication to correct the publication record. These investigators should be celebrated and applauded! They are a great example: We should reward and encourage their behavior, particularly as the journals often are reluctant to retract a publication, even at the authors’ request. In that context, it is important that the Retraction Watch database [retractiondatabase.org] provides reasons for each retraction, allowing the reader to make their own assessment of the significance of the issues involved in each case.

It is troubling that despite Retraction Watch’s conscientious efforts to improve the quality of science, and identify specific retracted publications, the fruits of this important effort often are overlooked or ignored.

As evidence of the apparent lack of value placed on retracted publications, having personally been in active research environments for nearly 40 years, and during that time having had multiple research grants, appointments, promotions, students and post-doctoral fellows, this year was the first time I have ever been asked if I had co-authored a retracted publication. Perhaps that indicates progress? I also have seen scientists who gain promotion, awards and re-appointment or relocate to a new institution despite their record on Retraction Watch: It would appear that transfer to a new institution can serve as a “re-set” and during the relocation process the prior record is ignored.

It is also concerning that the widely-accepted institutional rankings systems do not appear to consider retracted publications as part of the ranking process: Many of the top institutions from the 2020 Times Higher Education World University Rankings [timeshighereducation.com] figure prominently on Retraction Watch.

We, as the scientific community, must begin to address these shortcomings.

To that end, I propose:

1. Scientists should declare their citations on Retraction Watch on their Curriculum Vitae. Just as the Curriculum Vitae might record the number of publications, the number of citations, H-factor, etc, scientists should also declare their citations on Retraction Watch. It should certainly be expected that this information will be required during applications for grants, promotions, and when interviewing potential students and postdoctoral fellows.

1. Students and post-doctoral fellows should be routinely advised to review the Retraction Watch record for any potential laboratory or principal investigator with whom they might consider working.

1. Funding agencies should routinely review the Retraction Watch record before grants are reviewed, and certainly before they are awarded.

1. Institutions should routinely check the record on Retraction Watch before appointment and promotion of their staff.

1. Institutions should make it a priority to prevent misconduct and any ongoing and future retractions that result. Some famous institutions have multiple laboratories across the institution with a small number of such retractions; other institutions have one or two laboratories with many tens of such retractions. While the former might reflect a widespread cultural problem, the latter presumably reflects an institutional lack of integrity and unwillingness to deal with poor performance. It is concerning to see prominent individuals with multiple retractions for misconduct continue to receive institutional support and continue to enjoy the privilege of mentoring students and post-doctoral fellows. Whatever the reason, institutional prominence on Retraction Watch should be a warning sign for students, post-doctoral fellows, potential staff and funding agencies.

As scientists we enjoy an immensely privileged position. We work in an environment that has little regulation or oversight. We are supported by the taxpayer to engage in an activity that is intellectually invigorating and deeply rewarding. We enjoy that support as society expects us to continue to deliver advances that will improve their lives. As a scientific community we should strive for greater integrity, and embrace the changes that will strengthen our voice and our endeavors going forward. We can willingly undertake the requisite changes we know are necessary, or the time may come when we are compelled to do so.

C. Glenn Begley, together with Lee Ellis, highlighted the importance of robust scientific data in an oft-cited 2012 publication in Nature [nature.com]. He is currently Chief Executive Officer at BioCurate Pty Ltd, created to commercialize research emanating from University of Melbourne and Monash University. His prior positions included 10 years as Vice President and Global Head of Hematology and Oncology Research at Amgen.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work [paypal.com], follow us on Twitter [twitter.com], like us on Facebook [facebook.com], add us to your RSS reader [retractionwatch.com], or subscribe to our daily digest [eepurl.com]. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database [retractiondatabase.org], you can let us know here [google.com]. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Original Submission