How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers

Tijdink, Joeri K.; Schipper, Kerstin; Bouter, Lex M.; Pont, P. Maclaine; Jonge, Jos de; Smulders, Yvo M.

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008681

Cited by 70 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers have incentives to appear productive through publications (Hirsch, 2005;Tijdink et al, 2016a). Publishing positive results is easier than publishing null results (Fanelli, 2012;Giner-Sorolla, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated

Luke¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deception researchers widely acknowledge that cues to deception -observable behaviors that may differ between truthful and deceptive messagestend to be weak. Nevertheless, several deception cues have been reported with unusually large effect sizes, and some researchers have advocated the use of such cues as tools for detecting deceit and assessing credibility in practical contexts. Examining data from empirical deception cue research and using a series of Monte Carlo simulations, I demonstrate that many estimated effect sizes of deception cues may be greatly inflated by publication bias, small numbers of estimates, and low power. Indeed, simulations indicate the informational value of the present deception literature is quite low, such that it is not possible to determine whether any given effect is real or a false positive. I warn against the hazards of relying on potentially illusory cues to deception and offer some recommendations for improving the state of the science of deception. A preprint of this document is available at https://osf.io/xt8fq/."That Marionette," continued the Talking Cricket, "is a rascal of the worst kind." (Collodi, 1883) In an effort to temper our hopes of catching lies with unerring accuracy, deception researchers often say there is no "Pinocchio's nose" (e.g., Frank, Menasco, & O'Sullivan, 2008;Hartwig & Bond, 2011;Vrij, 2006Vrij, , 2004. That is, there is no behavior that perfectly discriminates between truthful and deceptive messages. For all the talk about Pinocchio's nose, there are other more urgent lessons from the story of Pinocchio pertinent to deception research.In his adventures, Pinocchio causes mischief and mayhem, and among his many foibles is the ease with which he is tempted to do what is easy and immediately satisfying but ultimately dangerous, rather than what is difficult and responsible. * timothy.luke@psy.gu.se. For their helpful comments, suggestions, and inspiration, I am grateful to Fabi Alceste, Karl Ask, Charlie Bond, Will Crozier, Bella DePaulo, Emelie Ernberg, Pär Anders Granhag, Maria Hartwig, Lorraine Hope, Emily Joseph, Louise Jupe, Erik Mac Giolla, Patty Sanchez, Rebecca Willén, and three anonymous reviewers, as well as the many supportive others who provided encouragement and tolerated my ravings and rantings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated

Luke¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authorship has high‐stakes implications for researchers’ promotion and tenure, future funding, career opportunities, wellness and sense of professional identity. Due in part to these consequences, questionable authorship practices and resultant authorship disputes are common . Beyond the individual researcher, questionable authorship practices can have negative long‐term effects on the scientific enterprise as a whole.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision making

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Authorship has major implications for researchers’ careers. Hence, journals require researchers to meet formal authorship criteria. However, researchers frequently admit to violating these criteria, which suggests that authorship is a complex issue. This study aims to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers’ conceptualisations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices. Methods A total of 26 North American medical education researchers at a range of career stages were interviewed. Participants were asked to respond to two vignettes, of which one portrayed honorary authorship and the other described an author order scenario, and then to describe related authorship experiences. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Participants conceptualised questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethically grey areas. Personal and situational factors were identified, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender; these contributed to participants’ vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices were used for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalised engagement in questionable authorship practices by suggesting that, although technically violating authorship criteria, such practices could be reasonable when they seemed to benefit science. Conclusions Authorship guidelines portray authorship decisions as being black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of grey. These findings show that researchers generally recognise these shades of grey and in some cases acknowledge having bent the rules themselves. Sometimes their flexibility is driven by benevolent aims aligned with their own values or prevailing norms such as inclusivity. At other times participation in these practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of researchers’ vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, these findings provide insights to help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence‐based solutions.

show abstract

“…A further decrease in funding rates will result from this negative cycle. Intense competition for funding can also generate downstream negative consequences ranging from the abandonment of promising but risky ideas in favour of more “fundable” projects (Fochler, Felt, & Müller, ; Laudel, ; Powell, ; Stephan, ) to the incentivization of questionable research practices and even fraudulent behaviour (Moore, Neylon, Eve, O'Donnell, & Pattinson, ; Tijdink et al., ).…”

Section: Funding Crisis: What Are the Critical Challenges And How Canmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

Meirmans

Butlin

Charmantier

et al. 2019

J of Evolutionary Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.

show abstract

How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers

Cited by 70 publications

References 27 publications

Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated

Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated

Exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision making

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About