Individual integrity and public morality in scientific publishing

Della-Sala, Sergio

doi:10.1590/1980-5764-DN-2022-V001

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Dementia & Neuropsychologia

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Views & Reviews • Dement. neuropsychol. 16 (2) • Apr-Jun 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5764-DN-2022-V001 copy

Individual integrity and public morality in scientific publishing

INTEGRIDADE INDIVIDUAL E MORALIDADE PÚBLICA NA PUBLICAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT.

Science and science reporting are under threat. Knowingly or not, researchers and clinicians are part of this debacle. This is not due so much to the notorious replication crisis, as to our acceptance of lowering common morality for personal gains, including the widespread, deprecable phenomenon of predatory publishing. Rather than fiercefully countering this loathsome practice, academics are accepting, often supporting a masquerade solution: paying several thousand dollars to publish for all their own papers. This new policy will create a disparity across richer and poorer disciplines; will result in concentrating even more in the hands of large, rich, Western institutions, also penalising younger researchers; will kill observational studies and exploratory research; and will make disseminating science depending more on finances than on quality. This article calls for the full awareness of the academic community on the risks of the current situation in scientific publishing.

Keywords:
Open Access Publishing; Predatory Publishers; Plan-S; Integrity; Scientific Publishing

Bad practice/misconduct	Description
p-hacking	Fishing for statistically significant results, massaging the data, cherry-picking them, or adding unplanned participants or data points to rich statistical significance⁴4. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1359-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/...
HARKing	Hypothesising after results are known. Writing the introduction and spelling out the study predictions after the data have been collected
Low statistical power	Not collecting enough data, or dispersing them in salami publications, favouring quantity of papers over their quality
Ignoring the effects of different analyses	Not being aware that little differences in scoring, pre-processing, analysing the data result in large conclusions differences⁵5. Botvinik-Nezer R, Holzmeister F, Camerer CF, Dreber A, Huber J, Johannesson M, et al. Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams. Nature. 2020;582(7810):84-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2314-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/...
Lacking definitions	Assuming common understanding of terms or concepts⁶6. Cubelli R, Della Sala S. In search of a shared language in neuropsychology. Cortex. 2017;92:A1-A2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.03.011 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/...
Framing study within loose assumptions	Lack of appreciation of the difference between intuitive hunches and a sound path between predictions and outcome⁷7. Mirman D, Scheel AM, Schubert A-L, McIntosh RD. Strengthening derivation chains in cognitive neuroscience. Cortex. 2022;146:A1-A4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.12.002 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/...
Pushing for novelty	Considering replications as mundane and wanting in intellectual adroitness
Knowingly publishing poor data	Influencing appointments, promotions and workload with quantity, rather than quality⁸8. Della Sala S, Morris RG. When no more research is needed (without further reflection). Cortex. 2020;123:A1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.12.018 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/...
Publication bias	Hiding, rejecting or not attempting to publishing null results or negative findings
Not data sharing	Being secretive about one’s own data due to fear of being caught wrong
Statistical fallacies	Using easy statistics rather than proper statistics
Not retracting	Unearthing errors and not retracting the paper in fear of public shame
Owning findings	Failing to appreciate that once published, findings belong to the community; criticisms are raised to results and not to authors (unless fraudulent). Verifications should be welcome⁹9. Chambers CD. Verification reports: a new article type at Cortex. Cortex. 2020;129:A1-A3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.04.020 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/...
Plagiarism	Lifting material from available literature without proper citation, including rephrasing, translating from a foreign text and reproducing own material (self-plagiarism)¹⁰10. Della Sala S, Grafman J, Cubelli R. I copy, therefore I publish. Cortex. 2013;49(9):2281-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.08.010 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/...
Misappropriation	Mentioning someone else’s ideas without the appropriate acknowledgement via citation of the original work
Misleading	Exaggerating the reach of the study, e.g. by gilding the titles of the paper, spuriously widening its real claims⁸8. Della Sala S, Morris RG. When no more research is needed (without further reflection). Cortex. 2020;123:A1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.12.018 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/...
Hiding conflicts	Not declaring possible conflicts of interests of authors or sponsors

Academia Brasileira de Neurologia, Departamento de Neurologia Cognitiva e Envelhecimento R. Vergueiro, 1353 sl.1404 - Ed. Top Towers Offices, Torre Norte, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, CEP 04101-000, Tel.: +55 11 5084-9463 | +55 11 5083-3876 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistadementia@abneuro.org.br | demneuropsy@uol.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Sergio Della Sala; Email: sergio@ed.ac.uk.