Image manipulation
Need to know more about image forgery and its detection? This paper might help
An Evaluation of Digital Image Forgery Detection Approaches
The Rockefeller University Press established 4 basic guidelines on image maniupulation - what’s OK and what’s not
Image manipulation guidelines
Online tool to identify human gene sequence errors could be used by editors to spot errors
Spotting genetic errors in cancer papers
Incentivizing good behaviour
The European Commission’s Open Science Policy Platform has published recommendations to address researchers’ recognition and reward structures to uses metrics and indicators that incentivise the types of behaviours that are good for research and researchers
Incentivizing good scientific behaviour
Court of law or court of peer review?
Author of US climate science paper which was critized by another author sues PNAS for $10 million for damages
Science of law?
Marcus and Oransky suggest that criticism is part of the scientific process and ALL stakeholders should accept it and use that process to correct the scientific record
Critique lawsuit retraction
Chilling effect on scientific inquiry due to legal climate; examples include lead, dietary supplements, public health effects of guns, back pain treatments
Important research not being done
Reproducibility. Reproducibility. Reproducibility.
Nuances of reporting about reproducibility have been blurred by social media
Reproducibility in science
How many ethical issues are possible for one publication?
A petition with more than 10,000 signatures asked for retraction over an essay which argued a “case for colonialism”. (Colleen Flaherty, Sept 19, 2017) Half of the Third World Quarterly editorial board resigned in protest about not only the content of the paper but also the process by which it was accepted. The author then asked for a retraction (Matthew Reisz, September 22, 2017) . This has prompted a discussion of whether retraction had become the new "normal” rather than academic discourse. Further, the concerns about the articles peer review process were addressed by Leon Heward-Mills, the global publishing director for journals in the Taylor & Francis group, after which the author revoked his request for retraction of the article, noting that the publisher had “reaffirmed the COPE principles of academic publishing that are designed to protect scientific research from censorship, including self-censorship”. (Fernanda Zamudio-Suaréz)
And a last minute update on October 9, 2017 by Colleen Flaherty in Inside Higher, reports the latest twist: the paper has been scrubbed from the record by the publisher at the request of the Editor in Chief, Shahid Qadir. The editor is said to have received credible death threats. Some have called to have the paper reinstated, and urging Taylor & Francis to not give in to these sort of violent threats.
This chain of events raises ethical questions at each step of the way, and all of it has resulted in more people reading the original article than would have happened without it. Note the Altmetric Score from 12/6/2017!
Call for retraction
Author requests retraction
Publisher stands by peer review process
Paper revoked following threats
Publication errors should not result in reputation damage to authors
Two journals issue retraction notices for papers that were published by mistake due to human errors with the submission process and publication prior to peer review. Should there be a new category for correcting the record called “publication error” so that authors are not dealing with the ramifications of a ‘retraction”?
Publication error
Publish where you cite
NIH Deputy director encourages scientist to “publish where you cite” and to consult resources like “Think.Check.Submit” to help maintain credibility.
Credible practices
Retraction education for researchers and students
Scholars who do research and students of information science should be taught about retractions and other ways of correcting the published record.
Retraction education