Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

Royal Society Open Science

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Grimes, David Robert ^a,b   Bauch, Chris T ^c   Ioannidis, John P A ^d  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Public trust in science; Publish or perish; Research ethics; Research fraud; Science trustworthiness

Indexed keywords

EID: 85040600016     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20545703     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.171511     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Fanelli D. 2010 Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE 5, e10271. (doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0010271)
2. Neill US. 2008 Publish or perish, but at what cost? J. Clin. Investig. 118, 2368–2368. (doi:10.1172/JCI36371)
3. Bornmann L, Mutz R. 2015 Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 2215–2222. (doi:10.1002/asi.23329)
4. Ioannidis JPA. 2005 Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124. (doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)
5. Krawczyk M. 2015 The search for significance: a few peculiarities in the distribution of p values in experimental psychology literature. PLoS ONE 10, e0127872. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127872)
6. Chavalarias D, Wallach JD, Li AHT, Ioannidis JPA. 2016 Evolution of reporting P values in the biomedical literature, 1990–2015. JAMA 315, 1141–1148. (doi:10.1001/jama.2016.1952)
7. Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler SL, Drummond GB. 2015 The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nat. Methods 12, 179–185. (doi:10.1038/nmeth.3288)
8. Altman N, Krzywinski M. 2016 Points of significance: P values and the search for significance. Nat. Methods 14, 3–4. (doi:10.1038/nmeth.4120)
9. Colquhoun D. 2014 An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. R. Soc. open sci. 1, 1–15. (doi:10.1098/rsos.140216)
10. Baker M. 2016 Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature 533, 452–454. (doi:10.1038/533452a)
11. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, Macleod M, Wisely J, Chalmers I. 2014 Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 383, 176–185. (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7)
12. Begley CG, Ioannidis JPA. 2015 Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ. Res. 116, 116–126. (doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819)
13. Editorial. 2017 Fostering reproducible fMRI research. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 298. (doi:10.1038/nn.4521)
14. Begley CG, Ellis LM. 2012 Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531–533. (doi:10.1038/483531a)
15. Ritchie SJ, Wiseman R, French CC. 2012 Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect. PLoS ONE 7, e33423. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0033423)
16. News headline. 2012 Controversial study promoting psychic ability debunked. Medical Xpress. See https://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-controversial-psychic-ability-debunked.html.
17. Edwards MA, Roy S. 2016 Academic research in the 21st Century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environ. Eng. Sci. 34, 51–61. (doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223)
18. Lawrence PA. 2003 The politics of publication. Nature 422, 259–261. (doi:10.1038/422259a)
19. Williamson A. 2001 COPE: committee on publication ethics. Learn. Publ. 14, 149–150. (doi:10.1087/095315101300059594)
20. de Vries R, Anderson MS, Martinson BC. 2006 Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics: Int. J. 1, 43–50. (doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43)
21. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. 2012 Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol. Sci. 23, 524–532. (doi:10.1177/0956797611430953)
22. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. 2005 Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435, 737–738. (doi:10.1038/435737a)
23. Fanelli D. 2009 How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4, e5738. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738)
24. Smaldino PE, McElreath R. 2016 The natural selection of bad science. R. Soc. open. sci. 3, 160384. (doi:10.1098/rsos.160384)
25. McElreath R, Smaldino PE. 2015 Replication, communication, and the population dynamics of scientific discovery. PLoS ONE 10, 1e0136088. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136088)
26. Giles J. 2005 Special report: taking on the cheats. Nature 435, 258–259. (doi:10.1038/435258a)
27. Franzen M, Rödder S, Weingart P. 2007 Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. EMBO Rep. 8, 3–7. (doi:10.1038/sj.embor. 7400884)
28. Gardner W, Lidz CW, Hartwig KC. 2005 Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemp. Clin. Trials 26, 244–251. (doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.11.013)
29. Ranstam J et al. 2000 Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. ISCB subcommittee on fraud. Control. Clin. Trials 21, 415–427.
30. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. 2012 Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 17 028–17 033. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109)
31. Ioannidis JP. 2014 How to make more published research true. PLoS Med 11, e1001747. (doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747)
32. Ioannidis JP, Khoury MJ. 2014 Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 312, 483–484. (doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6932)
33. Fuchs S, Westervelt SD. 1996 Fraud and trust in science. Perspect. Biol. Med. 39, 248–269. (doi:10.1353/pbm.1996.0043)
34. Claxton LD. 2005 Scientific authorship: Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat. Res.—Rev. Mutat. Res. 589, 17–30. (doi:10.1016/j.mrrev. 2004.07.003)
35. Steneck N. 2006 Fostering integrity in research: definition, current knowlege, and future directions. Sci. Eng. Ethics 12, 53–74. (doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y)
36. Glick JL. 1992 Scientific data audit—a key management tool. Account. Res. 2, 153–168. (doi:10.1080/08989629208573811)
37. Fanelli D. 2009 How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4, e5738. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738)
38. Davis P. 2017 Scientific Reports overtakes PLoS ONE as largest megajournal. Scholarly Kitchen. See https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/06/scientific-reports-overtakes-plos-one-as-largest-megajournal/.
39. Siontis KC, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. 2011 Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals. Int. J. Epidemiol. 40, 1280–1291. (doi:10.1093/ije/dyr095)
40. Van Dijk D, Manor O, Carey LB. 2014 Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Curr. Biol. 24, R516–R517. (doi:10.1016/j.cub. 2014.04.039)
41. Papatheodoroua SI, Trikalinos TA, Ioannidis JPA. 2007 Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 546–551. (doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.017)
42. Rosenthal R. 1979 The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638–641. (doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638)
43. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. 2014 Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 345, 1502–1505. (doi:10.1126/science.1255484)
44. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. 2012 Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. Br. Med. J. 344, d7292. (doi:10.1136/bmj.d7292)
45. Munafò MR et al. 2017 A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Human Behav. 1, 1–9. (doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021)
46. Tijdink JK, Vergouwen ACM, Smulders YM. 2013 Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: a nationwide survey. PLoS ONE 8, e73381. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073381)
47. Rawat S, Meena S. 2014 Publish or perish: where are we heading? J. Res. Med. Sci. 19, 87–89.
48. van Wesel M. 2016 Evaluation by citation: trends in publication behavior, evaluation criteria, and the strive for high impact publications. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22, 199–225. (doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9638-0)
49. Fanelli D, Costas R, Ioannidis JP. 2017 Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3714–3719. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 1618569114)
50. van der Heyden MAG, van de Ven T, Opthof T. 2009 Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction: implications for the peer-review process. Neth. Heart. J. 17, 25–29. (doi:10.1007/BF03086211)
51. Rasko J, Power C. 2015 What pushes scientists to lie? the disturbing but familiar story of Haruko Obokata. The Guardian. See https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-lie.
52. Vogel G. 2011 Jan Hendrik Schön loses his PhD. Science News. See http://www.sciencemag. org/news/2011/09/jan-hendrik-sch-n-loses-his-phd.
53. Scudellari M. 2010 A timeline of the Wakefield retraction. Nat. Med. 16, 248–248. (doi:10.1038/nm0310-248a)
54. Grimes DR. 2016 On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs. PLoS ONE 11, e0151003. (doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0151003)