Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms

Infection and Immunity

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 891-896

  Casadevall, Arturo ^a   Fang, Ferric C ^b  

^a ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNITY; COMPETITION; CULTURAL FACTOR; EDITORIAL; FUNDING; HUMAN; MANPOWER; METHODOLOGY; PHILOSOPHY; POLITICS; POLLUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; SCIENTIST; STRESS; SURVIVAL; TEAMWORK; TRAINING;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; ECONOMIC COMPETITION; HUMANS; SCIENCE;

EID: 84857671063     PISSN: 00199567     EISSN: 10985522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.06183-11     Document Type: Editorial

References (38)

1. Alon U. 2010. How to build a motivated research group. Mol. Cell 37:151-152.
2. Bauerlein M, Gad-el-Hak M, Grody W, McKelvey B, Trimble SW. 2011. We must stop the avalanche of low quality research. Chron. High. Educ. 56:38.
3. Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Levine-Finley S. 2010. Collaboration and field science: a team guide (draft). National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. https://ccrod.cancer.gov/confluence/display/NIHOMBUD/Home.
4. Carlyle T. 1858. The collected works of Thomas Carlyle. Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom.
5. Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2008. Descriptive science. Infect. Immun. 76:3835-3836.
6. Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2009. Mechanistic science. Infect. Immun. 77:1543-1553.
7. Casadevall A, Pirofski LA. 2006. A reappraisal of humoral immunity based on mechanisms of antibody-mediated protection against intracellular pathogens. Adv. Immunol. 91:1-44.
8. Cole MW. 2011. Numbers are not everything. Academe 95:30.
9. Colquhoun D. 5 September 2011. Publish or perish: peer review and the corruption of science. The Guardian, London, United Kingdom. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science.
10. Dowd M. 27 September 2011. Decoding the God complex. The New York Times, New York, NY. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/opinion/dowd-decoding-the-god-complex.html.
11. Editors of The Lancet. 2010. Retraction-Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 375:445.
12. Fanelli D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4:e5738.
13. Fanelli D. 2010. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One 5:e10271.
14. Fang FC, Casadevall A. 8 August 2011. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect. Immun. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11.
15. Fang FC, Casadevall A. 2012. Reforming science: structural reforms. Infect. Immun. 80:897-901.
16. Greenhalgh T. 2010. Why did the Lancet take so long? BMJ 340:c644.
17. Haynes AB, et al. 2009. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N. Engl. J. Med. 360:491-499.
18. Ioannidis JP. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2:e124.
19. Ioannidis JP. 2006. Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS One 1:e5.
20. Ioannidis JP. 2011. An epidemic of false claims. Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings. Sci. Am. 304:16.
21. Jinha AE. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learn. Publ. 23:258-263.
22. Kohut A, et al. 2009. Public praises science; Scientists fault public, media; scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Washington, DC. http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/.
23. Korpela KM. 2010. How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material? The Breuning case revisited. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 26:843-847.
24. Lee C. 28 May 2007. Slump in NIH funding is taking toll on research. Washington Post, Washington, DC. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052700794.html.
25. Leiserowitz AA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N, Dawson E. 2010. Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, New Haven, CT. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/climategate-public-opinion-and-the-loss-of-trust/.
26. Lewis S. 1925. Arrowsmith. Harcourt Brace and Co., New York, NY.
27. Machiavelli N. 1532. The Prince. Antonio Blado d'Asola, Florence, Italy.
28. Mintz AP. 2002. Web of deception: misinformation on the Internet. CyberAge Books, Medford, NJ.
29. Monod E. 2004. Einstein, Heisenberg, Kant: methodological distinction and conditions of possibilities. Inf. Organ. 14:105-121.
30. Postma E. 2011. Comment on "Additive genetic breeding values correlate with the load of partially deleterious mutations." Science 333:1221.
31. Steen RG. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit fraud? J. Med. Ethics 37:113-117.
32. Steen RG. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J. Med. Ethics 37:249-253.
33. Stern MD. 2010. Patrimony and the evolution of risk-taking. PLoS One 5:e11656.
34. Vahlne A. 2009. A historical reflection on the discovery of human retroviruses. Retrovirology 6:40.
35. Watson JD. 1968. The double helix: a personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. Atheneum, New York, NY.
36. Wikipedia. 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_priority_disputes.
37. Wilson DS. 2007. Evolution for everyone. Random House, New York, NY.
38. Woolf PK. 1986. Pressure to publish and fraud in science. Ann. Intern. Med. 104:254-256.