Top scientists call for improved incentives to ensure research integrity

June 25, 2015, Carnegie Mellon University
Credit: Petr Kratochvil/Public Domain

Scientific controversies, from problems replicating results - such as with the now debunked association between autism and MMR vaccines - to researcher misconduct and sensationalism, have led to speculation of "trouble at the lab," as the Economist put it.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands recently convened top scientists from Carnegie Mellon University, the University of California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology and other leading institutions to examine ways to return to high scientific standards. In an opinion piece published in Science, the group outlines what can be done to better ensure .

Attempting to do so begins with acknowledging and addressing the problems that exist at every level, from the notion that science is self-correcting to academia's incentive structures that encourage researchers to publish novel, positive results, to the greater opportunities open-access and other platforms provide to publish less-scrutinized studies. In addition, a lack of data sharing leads to the inability to replicate results, universities that want to make headlines exaggerate findings, and the media's quest for ratings and readership often trumps quality reporting.

"Science is littered with irreproducible results, even from top places, and it's a widespread problem that looks different in different domains, but there are shared commonalities," said CMU's Stephen E. Fienberg, the Maurice Faulk University Professor of Statistics and Social Sciences. "As a statistician, I understand how the role of data is critical. But determining how to set a policy to support data access is very complicated—there is not a simple set of rules."

The NAS and Annenberg group identified several ways to change incentives for quality and correction, including rewarding researchers for publishing high-quality work rather than publishing work more often; mentoring young peer-reviewers to increase clarity and quality of editorial responses during the journal publishing process; and using "voluntary withdrawal" and "withdrawal for cause" instead of the blanket "retraction" term, which has negative connotations that can prevent some researchers from taking action when a paper is wrong, but not as a result of fraud or misconduct.

Because ensuring scientific integrity is the responsibility of many stakeholders, the group recommends that the NAS call for an independent Scientific Integrity Advisory Board in 1992 should be revisited. The board's goal would be to address ethical issues in research conduct.

Additionally, universities should insist that their faculty and students are educated in research ethics; that their publications do not feature honorary or ghost authors; that public information officers avoid hype in publicizing findings; and suspect research is promptly and thoroughly investigated.

"We all have a responsibility if we want science to work. Academic institutions, scientific associations, journals, authors, university public relations officers and the press—people need to be trained all the way up the line," Fienberg said.

Explore further: The review of scientific studies in journals is subjective and the quality is variable

More information: "Self-correction in science at work?" www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.aab3847

Related Stories

Ensuring research integrity

May 9, 2011

Canada needs an agency to investigate research misconduct, states an editorial in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

Five companies control more than half of academic publishing

June 10, 2015

A study at the University of Montreal shows that the market share of the five largest research publishing houses reached 50% in 2006, rising, thanks to mergers and acquisitions, from 30% in 1996 and only 20% in 1973. "Overall, ...

Recommended for you

Frog choruses inspire wireless sensor networks

January 21, 2019

If you've ever camped by a pond, you know frogs make a racket at night; but what you might not know is how functional and regulated their choruses really are. Frogs communicate with sound, and amid their ruckus is an internally ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ab3a
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2015
Congratulations. They have identified the problem. However the causes or potential solutions are still out of reach.

Some time ago, I read an old radio magazine from around 1910. Despite my career and knowledge of Electrical Engineering, and 40 years experience as a ham radio enthusiast, these magazines were filled with almost impenetrable gobbledegook.

I think this is a symptom of over-specialized research with over-specialized jargon which thus limits the number of people who have enough background to review this work properly. It comes about because nobody can agree on exactly what to call new things. They're like those proverbial blind men feeling their way around an elephant. They have never encountered one before, so they all get very different impressions of what they're dealing with.

Perhaps one solution would be to spend the effort on conducting better research oversight and to spend time on developing better terms of art in alignment with other fields.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.