The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8

2020-08-11T11:43:09Z

0000-0003-0955-5216:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Values and norms
|Is About=Values are important beliefs or ideals of a person in a community, serving as a motivation for action. Norms are action-guiding rules. The difference between a value and a norm is that a value is general, referring to an overall ideal, whereas a norm is concrete, specifying certain things that have to be done (or omitted). Values can be operationalized in specifying norms; norms refer to and are justified by underlying values.
|Important Because=In codes of conduct for scientific research, the concepts of values and norms are often used interchangeably. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between the two concepts <ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1977). "Norms of Inquiry: Methodologies as Normative Systems", in G. Ryle (Ed.), ''Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy''. London: Oriel Press: 1-13.</ref><ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1998). "Science and ethics. Some of the main principles and problems", in A.J.I.Jones (Ed)., ''K.E. Tranøy, The moral import of science. Essays on normative theory, scientific activity and Wittengenstein''. Bergen: Sigma Forlag: 111-136. </ref>. Values are general ideals. They underlie norms, which are action-guiding rules. There are three kinds of such rules: permissions, orders or commands and prohibitions. Values show what persons and communities hold as important. Norms say what has to be done in order to realize values. Without a reference to underlying values, rules lack motivation and justification. Without corresponding norms, values lack specification and concrete direction.

Values and norms can be ''formal'' (that is: explicitly formulated) or ''informal'' (that is: implicitly assumed). Often, when values are discussed, corresponding norms are not explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, when norms are posed, the underlying values often remain implicit. Yet it is important to be aware of the concrete action-guiding rules envisaged when a certain value is mentioned, and of the general ideal behind a specific norm. An important aim of moral reflection is to provide such clarifications.
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; PhD students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations, investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake.<ref>Stolper M., Molewijk B., Widdershoven G. (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Medical Ethics'', <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1186</nowiki> (0)6 -016 25 -0125 -1</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each person? How can these values be specified into norms? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be the most important for the supervisor, meaning that, at a certain point, she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibility for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by encouraging reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve a new and richer view of the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms.<ref>Solbakk JH (1998).The concept of goodness in medical research. An action theoretic approach.In: Weisstub D (Ed.) ''Research on Human Subjects. Ethics, Law and Social Policy''. Elsevier Sciences: Oxford: 73-87</ref> Internal values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: truth, honesty, simplicity,consistency, coherence,economy,exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’. External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action, which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions, which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research, which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Guy Widdershoven; Jan-Helge Solbakk
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd

2020-08-11T11:15:35Z

0000-0003-0955-5216:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Questionable research practices & research misbehaviors
|Is About=Research misbehaviors, or questionable research practices (QRPs), are a threat to research integrity and to the validity of science. While research misconduct, in particular fabrication, falsification and plagiarism have a high impact on science, they rarely occur. Research misbehaviours, however, are estimated to occur frequently. While conceivibly having a lower impact on individual cases, the aggregreated impact is estimated to be much higher. <ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> <ref>Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one 2009;4(5):e5738.</ref> <ref>Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS, Louis KS. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 1993;81:542-53.</ref> <ref>Steneck NH. ORI: Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Government Printing Office; 2007.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=QRPs are actions that concern trespassing ‘methodological principles that threathen the relevance, valdity, trustworthiness, or efficiency of the study at issue’ <ref>L.M. Bouter, J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B.C. Martinson, G. ter Riet. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integrity Peer Rev, 1 (1) (2016), p. 17</ref>. QRPs can be divided over four main areas of the research process: the study design, data collection, reporting and collaboration. QRPs are estimated to occur far more frequently then serious misconduct, and therefore pose a threat to trust and truth in science. Under the current system QRPs are rewarded in the form of a higher number and more prestigious publications. Indeed, sloppy science as described above appears to have a strong “fitness to survive”. <ref>Smaldino, P. E. & McElreath, R. The natural selection of bad science. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160384 (2016)</ref>
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Research subjects; Scientists; Principal investigators; Researchers; Research institutions; Supervisors; Postdocs; Universities; Funders; Junior researchers; Senior researchers
|Has Best Practice=QRPs

According to research integrity experts who participated in a survey, <ref>L.M. Bouter, J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B.C. Martinson, G. ter Riet. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integrity Peer Rev, 1 (1) (2016), p. 17</ref> there are a number of QRPs that occur frequently and have a high impact on science. In relation to study design, for instance, QRPs include presenting misleading information in a grant application or ignoring risks of unexpected findings or safety risks to study participants, workers or environment. Under data collection falls behaviour such as collecting more data when noticing that statistical significance is almost reached or keeping inadequate notes of the research process. in relation to reporting, examples of QRPs are hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing), concealing results that contradict earlier findings, or not publishing a study with negative results. Moreover, selective citing to enhance your own findings or pleasing editors and colleagues is reported to often occur. QRPs that fall under collaboration are demanding or accepting authorship for which you do not qualify and reviewing your own papers. In addition, the misbehaviour that is estimated to occur the most and have a high impact on truth is insufficiently supervising junior coworkers. The misbehaviour that occurs the most and has the highest impact on trust is using published ideas of others without referencing.

'''Prevention'''

A way to counter QRPs could be to create awareness about research integrity issues and alter the current reward system. Instead of rewarding the number of publications, alternative aspects that could be rewarded include a researcher's commitment to pre-registration, data sharing and open science.
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff;Resource:9c917ab2-c01d-446b-89c1-a9cd415afb00;Resource:B47afc7d-44d6-4713-a209-953d58e81778;Resource:Ca0b7f16-c130-40d9-bae4-c92c7a0d025a;Resource:Fa937813-9987-4ceb-a69e-373cc876e476;Resource:3f8d6a6e-db25-438c-a266-dd0175fe09c0
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice
}}

Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8

2020-08-10T12:16:20Z

0000-0003-0955-5216:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Values and norms
|Is About=Values are important beliefs or ideals of a person in a community, serving as a motivation for action. Norms are action-guiding rules. The difference between a value and a norm is that a value is general, referring to an overall ideal, whereas a norm is concrete, specifying certain things that have to be done (or omitted). Values can be operationalized in specifying norms; norms refer to and are justified by underlying values.
|Important Because=In codes of conduct for scientific research, the concepts of values and norms are often used interchangeably. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between the two concepts <ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1977). "Norms of Inquiry: Methodologies as Normative Systems", in G. Ryle (Ed.), ''Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy''. London: Oriel Press: 1-13.</ref><ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1998). "Science and ethics. Some of the main principles and problems", in A.J.I.Jones (Ed)., ''K.E. Tranøy, The moral import of science. Essays on normative theory, scientific activity and Wittengenstein''. Bergen: Sigma Forlag: 111-136. </ref>. Values are general ideals. They underlie norms, which are action-guiding rules. There are three kinds of such rules: permissions, orders or commands and prohibitions. Values show what persons and communities hold as important. Norms say what has to be done in order to realize values. Without a reference to underlying values, rules lack motivation and justification. Without corresponding norms, values lack specification and concrete direction.

Values and norms can be ''formal'' (that is: explicitly formulated) or ''informal'' (that is: implicitly assumed). Often, when values are discussed, corresponding norms are not explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, when norms are posed, the underlying values often remain implicit. Yet it is important to be aware of the concrete action-guiding rules envisaged when a certain value is mentioned, and of the general ideal behind a specific norm. An important aim of moral reflection is to provide such clarifications.
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; PhD students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations, investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake.<ref>Stolper M., Molewijk B., Widdershoven G. (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Medical Ethics'', <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1186</nowiki> (0)6 -016 25 -0125 -1</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each person? How can these values be specified into norms? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be the most important for the supervisor, meaning that, at a certain point, she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibility for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by encouraging reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve a new and richer view of the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms.<ref>Solbakk JH (1998).The concept of goodness in medical research. An action theoretic approach.In: Weisstub D (Ed.) ''Research on Human Subjects. Ethics, Law and Social Policy''. Elsevier Sciences: Oxford: 73-87</ref> Internal values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: truth, honesty, simplicity,consistency, coherence,economy,exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’. External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Guy Widdershoven; Jan-Helge Solbakk
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8

2020-08-10T12:11:40Z

0000-0003-0955-5216:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Values and norms
|Is About=Values are important beliefs or ideals of a person in a community, serving as a motivation for action. Norms are action-guiding rules. The difference between a value and a norm is that a value is general, referring to an overall ideal, whereas a norm is concrete, specifying certain things that have to be done (or omitted). Values can be operationalized in specifying norms; norms refer to and are justified by underlying values.
|Important Because=In codes of conduct for scientific research, the concepts of values and norms are often used interchangeably. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between the two concepts <ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1977). "Norms of Inquiry: Methodologies as Normative Systems", in G. Ryle (Ed.), ''Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy''. London: Oriel Press: 1-13.</ref><ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1998). "Science and ethics. Some of the main principles and problems", in A.J.I.Jones (Ed)., ''K.E. Tranøy, The moral import of science. Essays on normative theory, scientific activity and Wittengenstein''. Bergen: Sigma Forlag: 111-136. </ref>. Values are general ideals. They underlie norms, which are action-guiding rules. There are three kinds of such rules: permissions, orders or commands, and prohibitions. Values show what persons and communities hold as important. Norms say what has to be done in order to realize values. Without a reference to underlying values, rules lack motivation and justification. Without corresponding norms, values lack specification and concrete direction.

Values and norms can be ''formal'' (that is: explicitly formulated) or ''informal'' (that is: implicitly assumed). Often, when values are discussed, corresponding norms are not explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, when norms are posed, the underlying values often remain implicit. Yet it is important to be aware of the concrete action-guiding rules envisaged when a certain value is mentioned, and of the general ideal behind a specific norm. An important aim of moral reflection is to provide such clarifications.
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; PhD students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations, investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake.<ref>Stolper M., Molewijk B., Widdershoven G. (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Medical Ethics'', <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1186</nowiki> (0)6 -016 25 -0125 -1</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each person? How can these values be specified into norms? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be the most important for the supervisor, meaning that, at a certain point, she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibility for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by encouraging reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve a new and richer view of the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms.<ref>Solbakk JH (1998).The concept of goodness in medical research. An action theoretic approach.In: Weisstub D (Ed.) ''Research on Human Subjects. Ethics, Law and Social Policy''. Elsevier Sciences: Oxford: 73-87</ref> Internal values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: truth, honesty, simplicity,consistency, coherence,economy,exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’. External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Guy Widdershoven; Jan-Helge Solbakk
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637

2020-08-10T11:41:15Z

0000-0003-0955-5216:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Non-reporting of negative findings
|Is About=Non-reporting of negative findings is a phenomenon that happens in science, when there is a bigger chance of publishing when you have a positive research result (a statistically significant finding of effect). <ref>Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen GMH, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:92-101.</ref> One of the consequences of this phenomenon is publication bias. <ref>Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):1-193.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Research in biomedical sciences reveals that positive results have a higher chance of being published. Because of that, negative results (for example, the lack of effect of some therapy) might be unavailable to the scientific community. Consequently, when other researchers conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis, the results are distorted in favor of the positive finding. Clinical trials with negative results, and those with reported serious side effects, often don’t get published, which is dangerous, unfair to participants, and a waste of resources. <ref>Brassington I. The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials. British Medical Bulletin. 2017;121(1):19-29.</ref> Getting negative results in a costly project and after a lot of hard work can be very demotivating, disappointing and can negatively impact young researchers’ careers. Some supervisors may not be happy to publish negative results, and in that way add to the climate of positive-publications-only.
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice=If a study’s methodology is valid, it is important to publish all of the results, including negative ones. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that researchers should publish negative data in order to prevent publication bias and potential waste of time and money because of duplication. World Health Organization, in 2005, called for publication of previous non-reported negative findings. The Committee on Publication Ethics, in their guidelines, state that journals should not refuse to publish negative findings. Some journals are dedicated to publication of null results only, such as the Journal of Negative Results, in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology. BioMed Central’s Journal of Negative results in BioMedicine ceased to publish in 2017.

In order to assess publication bias when conducting a meta-analysis, researchers use a funnel plot. A funnel-plot is a type of scatter-plot, in which both treatment effect and study precision are shown. If the data is not symmetrical, there is a high chance of either publication bias or small-study effect. <ref>Weintraub PG. The Importance of Publishing Negative Results: J Insect Sci. 2016 Oct 23;16(1):109. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iew092. eCollection 2016.</ref> This is especially important when doing a meta-analysis of clinical trials, as such results often end up being used as the strongest evidence in making of clinical practice guidelines. <ref>Kicinski M. How does under-reporting of negative and inconclusive results affect the false-positive rate in meta-analysis? A simulation study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e004831.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a
|Related To Theme=Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice; Publication ethics
}}

Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637

2020-08-10T11:34:15Z

0000-0003-0955-5216:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
|Title=Non-reporting of negative findings
|Is About=Non-reporting of negative findings is a phenomenon that happens in science, when there is a bigger chance of publishing when you have a positive research result (a statistically significant finding of effect). <ref>Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen GMH, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:92-101.</ref> One of the consequences of this phenomenon is publication bias. <ref>Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):1-193.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Research in biomedical sciences reveals that positive results have a higher chance of being published. Because of that, negative results (for example, the lack of effect of some therapy) might be unavailable to the scientific community. Consequently, when other researchers conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis, the results are distorted in favor of the positive finding. Clinical trials with negative results, and those with reported serious side effects, often don’t get published, which is dangerous, unfair to participants, and a waste of resources. <ref>Brassington I. The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials. British Medical Bulletin. 2017;121(1):19-29.</ref> Getting negative results in a costly project and after a lot of hard work can be very demotivating, disappointing and can negatively impact young researchers’ careers. Some supervisors may not be happy to publish negative results, and in that way add to the climate of positive-publications-only.
<references />
|Important For=Students; PhD Students; Scientists; Researchers; Journal publishers
|Has Best Practice=If a study’s methodology is valid, it is important to publish all of the results, including negative ones. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that researchers should publish negative data in order to prevent publication bias and potential waste of time and money because of duplication. World Health Organization, in 2005, called for publication of previous non-reported negative findings. The Committee on Publication Ethics, in their guidelines, state that journals should not refuse to publish negative findings. Some journals are dedicated to publication of null results only, such as the Journal of Negative Results, in the field of ecology and evolutionary biology. BioMed Central’s Journal of Negative results in BioMedicine ceased to publish in 2017.

In order to assess publication bias when conducting a meta-analysis, researchers use a funnel plot. A funnel-plot is a type of scatter-plot, in which both treatment effect and study precision are shown. If the data is not symmetrical, there is a high chance of either publication bias or small-study effect. <ref>Weintraub PG. The Importance of Publishing Negative Results: J Insect Sci. 2016 Oct 23;16(1):109. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iew092. eCollection 2016.</ref>This is especially important when doing a meta-analysis of clinical trials, as such results often end up being used as the strongest evidence in making of clinical practice guidelines. <ref>Kicinski M. How does under-reporting of negative and inconclusive results affect the false-positive rate in meta-analysis? A simulation study. BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e004831.</ref>
<references />
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:B044b353-a9cb-4a39-9069-79b114497331;Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e;Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a
|Related To Theme=Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable research practice; Publication ethics
}}

Resource:E083cc57-7e32-4e00-b688-8928e8becfa9

2020-08-10T11:18:08Z

0000-0003-0955-5216:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Geology Paper Has a Rocky Road is Now Retracted
|Is About=This case is about the retraction of the article: 'Impacts of rock properties on Danxia landform formation based on lithological experiments ar Kongtongshan National Geoparks, northwest China.' This article was written by a group from Sun Yat-sen University and Hainan University. This is a factual case.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2019/09/30/geology-paper-has-a-rocky-road-is-now-retracted/#more-116707
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Sun Yat Sen University; Hainan University; Retraction Watch
|Has Timepoint=30-9-2019
|Has Location=China
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Copyright
|Related To Research Area=Earth and related environmental sciences
}}

User:0000-0003-0955-5216

2020-08-10T10:18:13Z

0000-0003-0955-5216: create user page