Newton proposed questions, answers, hypotheses, and facts on research misconduct.32

Ql. Who does he want to continue to publish original research?

HI. Misconduct reasons: prevalent in GMP laboratories; widespread in RLs; less-rigorous controls; RLs are less likely to be inspected; RLs have similar motives.

Q2. What did it cause the spike in these infractions?

A2. Regulators learned to do data forensic auditing.

Q3. How to look for data discrepancies/ways that data could be manipulated to create outcome?

H2. Shift to inspecting original data directly in the electronic system will require years to improve.

FI. (Ranstam, 2000). 40% of researchers were aware of misconduct and they did not report it.

F2. (Gardner, 2005). 17% authors of clinical drug trials personally knew of fabrication in research.

Q4. Who have no conflict of interest in the work they perform?

Q5. How could RLs be the same as quality control (QC) laboratories?

A5. People will manipulate data when they are rewarded (or, not punished) for doing it.

H3. Challenge of research: Publish or perish.

Q6. What will cause the issue to be exposed?

Q 7. How will the improvements in data integrity be pushed into research?

Q8. Will it come from governments, NIH, publishers, or the universities themselves?

Q9. Will it be voluntary, tied to standards or external accreditations, or codified as law?

H4. Contradictoiy studies: Coffee is badfor you; it is goodfor you, etc. Q10. Is problem lack of data statistical power or data selection dying to support unsupportable H?


Strauss published an introduction to philosophy.33 Table 13.2 gives some metaphors that have made history in philosophy.34

TABLE 13.2 Some Metaphors that Have Made History in Philosophy.


Humans are born to die.

We all die in the end.

(Cervantes). As much true, Sancho, as someday we will be dead.

(Keynes). In the long run, we are all dead.

(Louis L’Amour). The more one learns the more he understands his ignorance.

(Albert Einstein). The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.

(Javier Sabada). The delimitation that supposes the beach between the ocean of the unattainable and the rationality of the land.

Value: a monetary metaphor used for intellectual or philosophical value.

Economic force: the one that is governed by the benefit.


Squazzoni group raised a Q on effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior.35

Q1. How the practice of publishing peer review reports affects the peer review process?

They provided the following conclusions (Cs).

Cl. Publishing reports did not compromise referees’ willingness to review/recommendations/times.

C2. Younger/nonacademic scholars accepted to review/gave positive/ objective recommendations.

C3. Male referees tended to write more constructive reports during the pilot.

C4. Only 8.1 % of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report.

They proposed the following hypotheses (H), questions, and facts (F).

HI. Open peer review does not compromise process at least when referees protect their anonymity.

Q2. Did knowing that report would be published affect referees’ willingness, recommendations, time, and tone?

Q3. (Rodriguez-Bravo, 2017; Tennant, 2017). Were innovations perceived differently by categories?

FI. More senior academic professors agreed less to review whereas younger scholars were keener.

Q4. Had the open review condition a different effect on specific subgroups of referees?

H2. The apparent decline of review invitation acceptance simply reflected a time trend.

F2. Referees without professor/Ph.D., younger/nonacademic, were actually more keen to review.

H3. The differences in recommendations could reflect a self-selection process.

F3. Referees who wrote more positive reviews were keener to reveal their identity later.

F4. Only a small minority of referees (8.1%) accepted to have their names published together.

F5. Referee status effect: Younger/nonacademic referees submitted more positive recommendations.

F6. They did not find any significant effect on tum-round time.

Q5. Did the linguistic style of reports change during the pilot?

Q6. Was the tone of the report mainly negative or positive?

Q7. Was the style used in the reports predominantly objective?

F7. They found a positive and significant interaction effect with gender.

F8. They found that younger and nonacademic referees were more objective.

H4. Open peer review does not compromise the inner workings of the peer review system.

F9. Only younger and nonacademic referees were slightly sensitive to the pilot.

F10. They were keener to accept more objective and less demanding when under open peer review.

F11. The tone of the report was less negative and subj ective when referees were male and younger.

H5. Referees opting to reveal their identity is a reputational signal for future cooperation.

FI2. Only 8.1% of referees agreed to reveal their identity.

H6. The veil of anonymity is the key also for open peer review.

Q8. (Fang and Casadevall, 2015). Is competition mining science?

H7. (Casadevall, 2015; Siddhartha, 2017). Anonymity reflects need for protection from retaliation.

Q9. (Squazzoni, Bravo, and Takacs, 2013). Does incentive provision increase peer-review quality?

H8. (Heavlin, 2017; Takacs, 2013). Peer review reflects epistemic differences in evaluation standards/disciplinary traditions.

H9. Open peer review influences author behavior/publication strategies making journals attractive.

Q10. (Ross-Hellauer, 2017). What is open peer review?

H10. (Ross-Hellauer, 2017; Teimant, 2017). Open-peer-review feasi- bility/sustainability is context specific.

HI 1. (Ross-Hellauer, 2017; Tennant, 2017). Current experiments diversity reflects awareness.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >