From MFKP_wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Selection: with tag scientific-misconduct [25 articles] 


No place for bullies in science

Nature, Vol. 559, No. 7713. (10 July 2018), pp. 151-151,


High-profile allegations of bullying at a German research institute highlight the need for better systems to protect young scientists. [Excerpt] [...] In Nature’s opinion, young researchers there have been let down over the years. These researchers say the institute and its parent body, the Max Planck Society — also one of the world’s leading research organizations — failed to control the situation in a timely manner. It is hard to disagree. [\n] Most scientific institutions in Germany — including the Max Planck ...


AI could threaten pharmaceutical patents

Nature, Vol. 558, No. 7711. (26 June 2018), pp. 519-519,


[Excerpt] Artificial intelligence could help to identify more-effective candidate drugs [...] A patent is granted only when a compound’s application can be classified as both ‘new’ and ‘invented’. A highly effective compound thrown up by an AI algorithm could indeed be new. Whether it is ‘invented’, however, is debatable. This is because the inventor might be considered as either the algorithm (so not a person) or its programmer. [...] ...


Communication: science censorship is a global issue

Nature, Vol. 542, No. 7640. (08 February 2017), pp. 165-165,


[Excerpt] [...] Regrettably, suppression of public scientific information is already the norm, or is being attempted, in many countries [...]. We fear that such gagging orders could encourage senior bureaucrats to use funding as a tool with which to rein in academic freedoms. [...] The response of scientists to this type of coercion has been to share scientific information widely and openly using such legal means as social media to defend facts and transparency [...] ...


The mismeasurement of science

Current Biology, Vol. 17, No. 15. (07 August 2007), pp. R583-R585,


[Excerpt:Impact factors and citations] Crucially, impact factors are distorted by positive feedback — many citations are not based on reading the paper but by reading other papers, particularly reviews. One study even suggested that, of cited articles, only some 20% had actually been read. [...] Nevertheless, citations are now being used to make quantitative comparisons between scientists. [...] [Changes in behaviour] Unfortunately, the use of these measures is having damaging effects on perceptions and on behaviour; these I list below. Please note that ...


Theory of citing

In Handbook of Optimization in Complex Networks, Vol. 57 (11 Sep 2012), pp. 463-505,


We present empirical data on misprints in citations to twelve high-profile papers. The great majority of misprints are identical to misprints in articles that earlier cited the same paper. The distribution of the numbers of misprint repetitions follows a power law. We develop a stochastic model of the citation process, which explains these findings and shows that about 70-90% of scientific citations are copied from the lists of references used in other papers. Citation copying can explain not only why some misprints become popular, but also why some ...


Ethics among scholars in academic publishing

In 2012 Proceedings of the Information Systems Educators Conference (2012), 1948


This paper offers a survey of the contemporary and common-place ethical breaches concerning authorship, research, and publishing in today’s scholarly production, as juxtaposed with some of the predominant standards and guidelines that have been developed to direct academic publishing practices. While the paper may suggest the need for an updated and comprehensive set of guidelines for multiple discipline areas, the purpose here is to prepare the theoretical framework for a future computing discipline-specific study of ethical authorship and related concepts in ...


Scientists behaving badly

Nature, Vol. 435, No. 7043. (9 June 2005), pp. 737-738,


To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices, argue Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries. [\n] Serious misbehaviour in research is important for many reasons, not least because it damages the reputation of, and undermines public support for, science. Historically, professionals and the public have focused on headline-grabbing cases of scientific misconduct, but we believe that researchers can no longer afford to ignore ...


The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (2016), pp. 1-8,


This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects ...


Corporate culture has no place in academia

Nature, Vol. 538, No. 7623. (3 October 2016), pp. 7-7,


‘Academic capitalism’ contributed to the mishandling of the Macchiarini case by officials at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, argues Olof Hallonsten. [Excerpt] [...] As academic capitalism spreads, universities abandon traditional meritocratic and collegial governance to hunt money, prestige and a stronger brand. [...] Yet this conduct goes against fundamental values of academia — the careful scrutiny of all claims, and of the research (and teaching) portfolios of those making such claims. This core principle in the self-organization of the academic system (studied ...


Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences

Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 70, No. 9. (May 2010), pp. 1458-1465,


Despite attempts at clear direction in international, national and journal guidelines, attribution of authorship can be a confusing area for both new and established researchers. As journal articles are valuable intellectual property, authorship can be hotly contested. Individual authors' responsibilities for the integrity of article content have not been well explored. Semi-structured interviews (n = 17) were conducted with staff, student advocates and doctoral candidates working in health research in two universities in Australia. Stratified sampling ensured participants reflected a range of experience ...


Responsible authorship: why researchers must forgo honorary authorship

Accountability in Research, Vol. 18, No. 2. (9 March 2011), pp. 76-90,


Although widespread throughout the biomedical sciences, the practice of honorary authorship?the listing of authors who fail to merit inclusion as authors by authorship criteria?has received relatively little sustained attention. Is there something wrong with honorary authorship, or is it only a problem when used in conjunction with other unethical authorship practices like ghostwriting? Numerous sets of authorship guidelines discourage the practice, but its ubiquity throughout biomedicine suggests that there is a need to say more about honorary authorship. Despite its general ...


Stop ignoring misconduct

Nature, Vol. 537, No. 7618. (1 September 2016), pp. 29-30,


Efforts to reduce irreproducibility in research must also tackle the temptation to cheat, argue Donald S. Kornfeld and Sandra L. Titus. [Excerpt: Preventing misconduct] To diminish the threat that misconduct poses to science, scientists and society: [::] Authorities should acknowledge that deliberate misconduct is an important contributor to irreproducibility. [::] Mentors should be evaluated to assure quality; those who contribute to misconduct should be penalized. [::] Institutions and government agencies should have procedures to protect whistle-blowers from retaliation. [::] Senior faculty members who are found guilty of ...


(INRMM-MiD internal record) List of keywords of the INRMM meta-information database - part 36

(February 2014)
Keywords: inrmm-list-of-tags   saraca-asoca   sassafras-albidum   sassafras-spp   satellites   saudi-arabia   savanna   savannas   saxifraga-rotundifolia   saxony   scalability   scale-free-network   scale-invariance   scale-vs-pixel   scandinavia   scaphoideus-titanus   scarcity   scavengers   scenario-analysis   schima-superba   schinopsis-balansae   schinus-molle   schinus-terebinthifolius   scholarly-poor   science-2-0   science-based-decision-making   science-ethics   science-history   science-literacy   science-policy-interface   science-society-interface   scientific-communication   scientific-community-self-correction   scientific-creativity   scientific-debate   scientific-knowledge-sharing   scientific-misconduct   scientific-software   scientific-topics-focus   scilab   scipy   scirrhia-pini   sclerophyllous   scolytinae   scolytus-intricatus   scolytus-multistriatus   scolytus-spp   scopus   scopus-indexed   scotland   scottnema-lindsayae   scrub   scrubland   sdm   sea   sea-level   second-order-science   secondary-metabolism   secondary-opportunistic-pest   secondary-production   sediment   sediment-flushing   sediment-retention   sediment-sluicing   sediment-transport   sediment-yield   seed-dispersal   seed-limitation   seed-orchard   seed-predation   seed-production   seed-sterility   seedling-production   seedling-recruitment   seedlings   seeds   seiridium-cardinale   seiridium-spp   seismicity   self-adaptive-systems   self-fertile   self-healing   self-organization   self-similarity   self-stabilisation   sell   semantic-array-programming   semantic-constraints   semantic-segmentation   semantic-web   semantically-enhanced-library-languages   semantics   semap   semi-natural-habitat   senecio-spp   senegal   sensitivity   separation-of-concerns   septoria-musiva   sequoia-abietina  


List of indexed keywords within the transdisciplinary set of domains which relate to the Integrated Natural Resources Modelling and Management (INRMM). In particular, the list of keywords maps the semantic tags in the INRMM Meta-information Database (INRMM-MiD). [\n] The INRMM-MiD records providing this list are accessible by the special tag: inrmm-list-of-tags ( ). ...


How many scientific papers are not original?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 112, No. 1. (06 January 2015), pp. 6-7,


[Excerpt] Is plagiarism afflicting science? In PNAS, Citron and Ginsparg (1) count the number of authors who are submitting articles containing text already appearing elsewhere. They report disturbing numbers of authors resorting to copying, particularly in some countries where 15% of submissions are detected as containing duplicated material. I am on the editorial board of an Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) magazine, which also finds it useful to run all of the submissions through a plagiarism filter. What can ...


Retraction challenges

Nature, Vol. 514, No. 7520. (1 October 2014), pp. 5-5,


[Excerpt] A key responsibility of any journal is to correct erroneous information that it has published, and as quickly as possible. [\n] Easily said! It is straightforward enough for authors to correct a paper. But if it becomes clear after publication that the conclusions are fundamentally flawed, a retraction is appropriate — and things can then get a lot more challenging. [...] [\n] That is why the literature of retractions in high-impact journals might be skewed towards misconduct that has been proved through ...



Science, Vol. 343, No. 6168. (17 January 2014), pp. 229-229,


Science advances on a foundation of trusted discoveries. Reproducing an experiment is one important approach that scientists use to gain confidence in their conclusions. Recently, the scientific community was shaken by reports that a troubling proportion of peer-reviewed preclinical studies are not reproducible. Because confidence in results is of paramount importance to the broad scientific community, we are announcing new initiatives to increase confidence in the studies published in Science. For preclinical studies (one of the targets of recent concern), we ...


Not all plagiarism requires a retraction

Nature, Vol. 511, No. 7508. (9 July 2014), pp. 127-127,


Papers that plagiarize only text can still contribute to the literature, but any errors or omissions should be prominently corrected, says Praveen Chaddah. [Excerpt] The ease with which large chunks of text can be digitally scanned and compared with what has previously been published has produced a new breed of academic watchdog. Plagiarism-detection software has opened up scrutiny of scientific publications to non-experts and text that has been copied and pasted without proper attribution is now a common reason for papers being ...


China's publication bazaar

Science, Vol. 342, No. 6162. (29 November 2013), pp. 1035-1039,


Science has exposed a thriving academic black market in China involving shady agencies, corrupt scientists, and compromised editors—many of them operating in plain view. The commodity: papers in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters' Science Citation Index, Thomson Reuters' Social Sciences Citation Index, and Elsevier's Engineering Index. ...


Sabotaged scientist sues Yale and her lab chief

Science, Vol. 343, No. 6175. (07 March 2014), pp. 1065-1066,


Magdalena Koziol, a former postdoc at Yale University, was the victim of scientific sabotage. Now, she is suing the alleged perpetrator, who she claims poisoned her zebrafish, as well as her former boss at Yale, who she says became hostile and unsupportive after the sabotage was discovered, and Yale University. The complex case raises a host of questions about research sabotage, a type of misbehavior that some scientists believe is more common than the few known cases suggest. ...


'Conferring authorship': Biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research

PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 9. (30 September 2013), pp. e76686-e76686,


Multi-collaborator research is increasingly becoming the norm in the field of biomedicine. With this trend comes the imperative to award recognition to all those who contribute to a study; however, there is a gap in the current âgold standardâ in authorship guidelines with regards to the efforts of those who provide high quality biosamples and data, yet do not play a role in the intellectual development of the final publication. We carried out interviews with 36 individuals working in, or with ...


Final Report on Stapel Also Blames Field As a Whole

Science, Vol. 338, No. 6112. (07 December 2012), pp. 1270-1271,


A joint report on disgraced social psychologist Diederik Stapel was issued on 28 November by three committees, one for each of the universities where he worked. That same day, Stapel made his first media appearance in more than a year. In a video statement, he said he was deeply sorry and announced he had written an autobiography to explain how his fraud happened. But the key message in the joint report said that the fraud is not just about Stapel but ...


Testing time for climate science

Science, Vol. 328, No. 5979. (07 May 2010), pp. 695-696,


Climate science needs better ways of accounting for itself to the jury of the world. ...


Duke Scientists Retract Another Paper – and the Damage Spreads

(January 2011)

Why most published research findings are false

PLOS Medicine, Vol. 2, No. 8. (30 August 2005), e124,


There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there ...


Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions

Nature, Vol. 490, No. 7418. (1 October 2012), pp. 21-21,


Conventional wisdom says that most retractions of papers in scientific journals are triggered by unintentional errors. Not so, according to one of the largest-ever studies of retractions. A survey1 published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that two-thirds of retracted life-sciences papers were stricken from the scientific record because of misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud — and that journals sometimes soft-pedal the reason. [...] ...

This page of the database may be cited as:
Integrated Natural Resources Modelling and Management - Meta-information Database.

Publication metadata

Bibtex, RIS, RSS/XML feed, Json, Dublin Core

Meta-information Database (INRMM-MiD).
This database integrates a dedicated meta-information database in CiteULike (the CiteULike INRMM Group) with the meta-information available in Google Scholar, CrossRef and DataCite. The Altmetric database with Article-Level Metrics is also harvested. Part of the provided semantic content (machine-readable) is made even human-readable thanks to the DCMI Dublin Core viewer. Digital preservation of the meta-information indexed within the INRMM-MiD publication records is implemented thanks to the Internet Archive.
The library of INRMM related pubblications may be quickly accessed with the following links.
Search within the whole INRMM meta-information database:
Search only within the INRMM-MiD publication records:
Full-text and abstracts of the publications indexed by the INRMM meta-information database are copyrighted by the respective publishers/authors. They are subject to all applicable copyright protection. The conditions of use of each indexed publication is defined by its copyright owner. Please, be aware that the indexed meta-information entirely relies on voluntary work and constitutes a quite incomplete and not homogeneous work-in-progress.
INRMM-MiD was experimentally established by the Maieutike Research Initiative in 2008 and then improved with the help of several volunteers (with a major technical upgrade in 2011). This new integrated interface is operational since 2014.