Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others

Abstract

Fallibility in science cuts both ways: it poses dilemmas for the scientist who discovers errors in their own work, and for those who discover errors in the work of others. The ethical response to finding errors in one's own work is clear: they should be claimed and corrected as rapidly as possible. Yet people are often reluctant to 'do the right thing' because of a perception this could lead to reputational damage. I argue that the best defence against such outcomes is adoption of open science practices, which help avoid errors and also leads to recognition that mistakes are part of normal science. Indeed, a reputation for scientific integrity can be enhanced by admitting to errors. The second part of the paper focuses on situations where errors are discovered in the work of others; in the case of honest errors, action must be taken to put things right, but this should be done in a collegial way that offers the researcher the opportunity to deal with the problem themselves. Difficulties arise if those who commit errors are unresponsive or reluctant to make changes, when there is disagreement about whether a dataset or analysis is problematic, or where deliberate manipulation of findings or outright fraud is suspected. I offer some guidelines about how to approach such cases. My key message is that for science to progress, we have to accept the inevitability of error. In the long run, scientists will not be judged on whether or not they make mistakes, but on how they respond when those mistakes are detected.

Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project

“…Finally, it is quite possible that fears about negative reputational consequences are exaggerated. It is unclear whether and to what extent self-retractions actually damage researchers' reputations (Bishop, 2018). Recent acts of self-correction such as those by Carney (2016), which inspired our efforts in this project, Silberzahn and Uhlmann (Silberzahn et al, 2014), Inzlicht (2016), Willén (2018), and Gervais (2017) have received positive reactions from within the psychological community.…”

Les pratiques de recherche ouvertes en psychologie

“…Dans les publications scientifiques, les erreurs statistiques sont plus communes que ce que l’on peut imaginer de prime abord, et ce, dans différentes disciplines, que ce soit en psychologie ( Bakker & Wicherts, 2011 ; Nuijten, Hartgerink, van Assen, Epskamp, & Wicherts, 2016 ; Rouder, Haaf, & Snyder, 2019 ), en médecine ( García-Berthou & Alcaraz, 2004 ; Murphy, 2004 ), en psychiatrie ( Berle & Starcevic, 2007 ), en management ( Bergh, Sharp, Aguinis, & Li, 2017 ) ou en philosophie expérimentale ( Colombo, Duev, Nuijten, & Sprenger, 2018 ). Les erreurs étant humaines (et source d’embarras, Bishop, 2018 ), il serait extraordinairement étonnant de n’en observer aucune. Ces erreurs peuvent être de nature très diverse et varier en gravité.…”

Ten simple rules for open human health research

“…Errors occur in public and in private, and while "making code and data open does not prevent errors, […] it does make it possible to detect them. […] People often worry that if they make their code and data open, errors will be found, but that is really the whole point: We need to make code and data open because this is how the errors can be found" [ 108 ]. The individuals who document the research don’t have to be the same people who conduct the research: assigning different people to document versus run a study encourages generally understandable documentation.…”