Overflow in science and its implications for trust

eLife

Volumn 4, Issue September2015, 2015, Pages

  Siebert, Sabina ^a   Machesky, Laura M ^b   Insall, Robert H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPETITION; DATA PROCESSING; FRAUD; FUNDING; HUMAN; JOB MARKET; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SCIENTIST; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SOCIOLOGY; TRUST; ETHICS; INTERVIEW; PERSONNEL; PSYCHOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 84942050204     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.10825     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alberts B. 2010. Overbuilding research capacity. Science 329: 1257. doi: 10. 1126/science. 1197077.
2. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. 2015. Addressing systemic problems in the biomedical research enterprise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 112: 1912-1913. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 1500969112.
3. Begley CG, Ellis LM. 2012. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 531-533. doi: 10. 1038/483531a.
4. Bishop D. 2014. No logic in King's College job cuts. Times Higher Education. Available at: https://www. timeshighereducation. co. uk/comment/opinion/nologic-in-kings-college-job-cuts/2014249. article.
5. Bourne HR. 2013. A fair deal for PhD students and postdocs. eLife 2: e01139. doi: 10. 7554/eLife. 01139.
6. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, Munafò MR. 2013. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 356-376. doi: 10. 1038/nrn3475.
7. Curry S. 2012. Sick of impact factors. Available at: http://occamstypewriter. org/scurry/2012/08/13/sickof-impact-factors/.
8. Czarniawska B. 2012. News agencies: the places where information permanently overflows. In: Czarniawska B, Löfgren O, editors. Managing Overflow in Affluent Societies. New York: Routledge. p. 31-51.
9. Czarniawska B, Löfgren O. 2012. Managing Overflow in Affluent Societies. New York: Routledge.
10. Czarniawska B, Löfgren O. 2013. Coping with Excess: How Organizations, Communities and Individuals Manage Overflows. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
11. Eisen M. 2011. Peer review is f***ed up-let's fix it. http://www. michaeleisen. org/blog/?p=694.
12. Eisen M. 2015. Thoughts on Ron Vale's 'Accelerating Scientific Publication in Biology'. http://www. michaeleisen. org/blog/?p=1733.
13. Errington TM, Iorns E, Gunn W, Tan FE, Lomax J, Nosek BA. 2014. An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. eLife 3: e04333. doi: 10. 7554/eLife. 04333.
14. Fellman S, Popp A. 2013. Lost in the archive: the business historian in distress. In: Czarniawska B, Löfgren O, editors. Coping with Excess: How Organizations, Communities and Individuals Manage Overflows. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 216-243.
15. Fishburn CS. 2014. Repairing reproducibility. Science Business e-Xchange. doi: 10. 1038/scibx. 2014. 275.
16. Garfield E. 2006. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295: 90-93. doi: 10. 1001/jama. 295. 1. 90.
17. Jump P. 2015. Grant income targets set at one in six universities, THE poll suggests. Times Higher Education. Available at: https://www. timeshighereducation. co. uk/news/grant-income-targets-set-one-six-universitiespoll-suggests.
18. Kimble J, Bement WM, Chang Q, Cox BL, Drinkwater NR, Gourse RL, Hoskins AA, Huttenlocher A, Kreeger PK, Lambert PF, et al. 2015. Strategies from UWMadison for rescuing biomedical research in the US. eLife 4: e09305. doi: 10. 7554/eLife. 09305.
19. Lanham RA. 2006. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Löfgren O. 2013. Selective knowledge: learning to forget and to ignore. In: Czarniawska B, Löfgren O, editors. Coping with Excess: How Organizations, Communities and Individuals Manage Overflows. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 244-267.
21. NIH. 2012. Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report. Available at: http://acd. od. nih. gov/biomedical_research_wgreport. pdf.
22. Nature. 2005. Not-so-deep impact. Nature 435: 1003-1004. doi: 10. 1038/4351003b.
23. Nature. 2015. Nature journals offer double-blind review. Nature 518: 274. doi: 10. 1038/518274b.
24. Nature Biotechnology. 2012. Further confirmation needed. Nature Biotechnology 30: 806. doi: 10. 1038/nbt. 2335.
25. Norén L. 2013. Management of and by overflow: the example of primary healthcare. In: Czarniawska B, Löfgren O, editors. Coping with Excess: How Organizations, Communities and Individuals Manage Overflows. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 64-80.
26. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2014. The Culture of Scientific Research in the UK. Available at: http://nuffieldbioethics. org/wp-content/uploads/Nuffield_research_culture_full_report_web. pdf.
27. Open Science Foundation. 2012. An open, largescale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7: 657-660. doi: 10. 1177/1745691612462588.
28. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10: 712-713. doi: 10. 1038/nrd3439-c1.
29. Resnik DB, Dinse GE. 2013. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 46-50. doi: 10. 1136/medethics-2012-100766.
30. Seglen PO. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314: 498-502. doi: 10. 1136/bmj. 314. 7079. 497.
31. Steen RG. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics 37: 249-253. doi: 10. 1136/jme. 2010. 040923.
32. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2013. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLOS ONE 8: e68397. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone. 0068397.
33. The Economist. 2013. Unreliable research: trouble at the lab. Available at: http://www. economist. com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-selfcorrecting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble.
34. Vale RD. 2015. Accelerating scientific publication in biology. bioRxiv. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1101/022368.
35. Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O. 2008. Why current publication practices may distort science. PLOS Medicine 5: 1418-1422. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pmed. 0050201.