Fraud
Are You Sure?
31/07/12 12:55 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Daniel MacArthur at Massachusetts General Hospital suggests that false positives are a given in genomic research, especially due to the large size of genomes and errors from high-throughput sequencing. Ann Buchanan at Penn State University also notes for these and a variety of other reasons there many sequence errors in genomics manuscripts and online databases and a higher rate of retractions. S. Pelech argues that the increased rate of retraction of scientific research results in publications in general actually reflects a wide variety of confounding factors beside greater error rates from higher throughput technologies. These include amongst others premature submission for publication due to financial and continuing employment requirements, poorer peer-review, and a proliferation of new journals eager to acquire manuscripts, which can result in outright plagiarism and even fraudulent data. Read More...
Take it Easy
04/08/11 01:07 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
John Horgan at the Scientific American Cross-check blog suggested that when researchers rush to publish their results, they can make mistakes and exaggerate the importance of their work, cut corners, and sometimes commit fraud. This is why some researchers are now championing what's being called the "slow science movement," which calls on researchers to be deliberate and cautious in what they choose to print. S. Pelech comments that slow science does not necessarily equate with better science, and exaggeration of the importance of research findings, cutting corners and committing fraud are not really linked to performing faster science, it just bad science at any speed. Read More...
Take That Back
12/08/11 16:16 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Blogger Derek Lowe at the Pipeline described what appears to be seems to be a dramatic increase in the frequency of retracted papers based on data from Thomson Reuters, which reported that the number of papers published has risen 44 percent since 2001, while the retraction rate has risen 15-fold. A chart of PubMed retractions shows many of them are from top journals. S. Pelech comments that with over a million new scientific manuscripts published annually, the actual increase in retracted publications over the last decade is actually pretty inconsequential. Read More...
Pity the Poor Fraudster?
19/04/12 14:46 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Brian Deer at the Guardian wondered whether the problem of more research fraud stems from increased misconduct or because other researchers are getting better at catching it? He somewhat sympathized with Peter Francis, who due to the stiff compeption for research support, applied for a grant using fabricated data, was caught by his university, and was investigated by the US Office of Research Integrity. While S. Pelech finds it hard to accept Dr. Francis as a victim of the present system, he comments that Dr. Francis' behaviour does reveal how easily it can be abused. He suggests that a better grant funding system that takes into account the realities of scientific research would be to fund established investigators primarily on the basis of their recent productivity and less so on their ideas. Read More...