发表后同行评议,目的是揭露科学研究中的数据/结果违规和潜在的研究不端行为:自私自利还是志愿服务?

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang
{"title":"发表后同行评议,目的是揭露科学研究中的数据/结果违规和潜在的研究不端行为:自私自利还是志愿服务?","authors":"Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh,&nbsp;Bor Luen Tang","doi":"10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh,&nbsp;Bor Luen Tang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

科学研究数据/结果的不规范可能会在发表前被同事和审稿人发现,或者在发表后被具有既得利益的读者发现。后者可能由同一学科领域的研究人员组成,他们自然会更密切地关注已发表的论文。然而,越来越明显的是,有读者详细询问论文,主要目的是识别工作中的潜在问题。在这里,我们考虑由个人或个人群体进行的发表后同行评议(PPPR),他们进行PPPR的目的是积极识别已发表数据/结果中的违规行为,并揭露潜在的研究欺诈或不当行为,或故意不当行为暴露(IME)-PPPR。一方面,这种活动,如果是匿名或假名进行,没有正式的话语,被认为是缺乏问责制,或被认为会引起某种程度的恶意,并被贴上了治安维持主义的标签。另一方面,这些自愿的工作揭示了许多研究不当行为的实例,并帮助纠正了文献。我们从道德允许度、研究伦理和科学社会学的角度探讨了IME-PPPR在发现已发表论文错误方面的切实好处。我们认为,IME-PPPR活动的好处是发现了不当行为的明确证据,即使是匿名或假名进行的,也超过了它们所感知到的缺陷。这些活动有助于形成一种警惕的研究文化,这种文化体现了科学的自我纠正性质,并且符合默顿科学精神的规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?

Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?

Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信