What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
[
P-value hacking, also known as data dredging, data fishing, data snooping or data butchery, is an exploitation of data analysis in order to discover patterns which would be presented as statistically significant, when in reality, there is no underlying effect.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"' In other words, p-hacking is running statistical tests on a set of data until some statistically significant results arise. That can be done in a few different ways, for example: by stopping the collection of data once you get a P<0.05, analyzing many outcomes, but only reporting those with P<0.05, using covariates, excluding participants, etc.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
This article presents the definition, sources, and consequences as well as misconceptions in scientific understanding of data which result in publication bias in favor of positive results. +
Salami publication (also known as "salami slicing") is characterized by the spreading of study results over more papers than necessary. This article will briefly try to present what the criteria for and effects of salami publication are. +
Selective citation refers to biased ways of looking at the body of previously published work and involves cherry-picking when using available knowledge. +
Spin is the manipulation of language to potentially mislead readers from the likely truth of the results. Within quantitative empirical research, such as randomized controlled trials, spin is defined as the “use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome [ie, inappropriate use of causal language], or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results [ie, to focus on a statistically significant secondary result]”. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Papers and grant applications should only be submitted or resubmitted after consent from all authors. Not getting consent from all authors is considered a questionable research practice, and goes against the widely recognized recommendations from ICMJE (1).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Not gaining consent from all authors can lead to reputational damage for authors, especially when the article or application does not meet the standards of the non-consenting authors.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Successful and fruitful collaborations are one of the desired outcomes of research. Different partners can contribute to various aspects of the research project based on their expertise, which improves the strength and quality of findings. Successful collaborations also strengthen trust between the involved partners, which is essential for the advancement of knowledge. <sup>1</sup> +
Fake reviewing, or self-reviewing, involves recommending a fake reviewer during the peer-review process.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"' Fake or self-review manipulates the review process and guarantees a paper receives a positive review. This is considered a questionable research practice.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000001-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000002-QINU`"' +
Even though a majority of university students are female, in most research areas a minority of senior professors are female. It is thought that one of the important causes of this is gender bias: women not being given the same professional opportunities as men. Often this bias is unconscious (so-called “implicit bias”)'"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'. Gender is often considered to be different from ‘sex’(male/female). It can be perceived as a social construct of what it means to be a man, woman or non-binary.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Honorary authorship and gift authorship are two types of authorship frauds in research. Both honorary and gift authorship refers to assigning authorship to those who have not contributed significantly to study but are named authors for other reasons, such as enhanced funding and publication opportunities. +
Peer review is an important part of the scientific process. Scientists usually value peer work honesty and benevolence, but sometimes, for different reasons, reviewers take a different approach. They can be offensive or insulting, and such reviews are then considered hostile reviews. +
There are many forms of inappropriate authorship, and some of them happen when people are listed as authors even if they did not contribute significantly (guest or gift authors), or when people who did do the work do not get the credit (ghost authors). +
Every contribution to research should be properly acknowledged. When someone provides help, but does not qualify for authorship, they should be mentioned as contributors in the acknowledgment section. Not acknowledging contributors is considered a questionable research practice. +
Most critical scientific questions or innovative technologies can often be solved by ''collaboration among teams of researchers with diverse backgrounds.'' The fusion of different fields can enable the achievement of incredible goals. '''''Collaborative research''''' can be defined as research that involves coordination among researchers, institutions, organizations, and/or communities. Collaboration can be classified as voluntary cooperation, consortium, association, merger, and fusion, and can occur at five different levels: within a discipline, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, or national or international. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
Self-plagiarism is the practice of reusing significant parts of one’s own publication in another publication. Self-plagiarism is also known as duplicate (or multiple) publishing. Keep in mind that self-plagiarism is different from duplicate submission. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000000-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000001-QINU`"' +
According to the European Code of Conduct in Research Integrity, “all partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research.” <sup>1</sup> It is thus expected that all involved parties are aware of, and agree on the principles of research integrity, what constitutes misconduct and how potential misconduct will be handled. In addition, all authors of a publication are assumed to be answerable for the entire content of the publication, unless specified otherwise. +
When you witness a colleague making a mistake, it is sometimes difficult to address it. It is even more difficult to address if the mistake is not an honest error, but an intentional breach of the rules. Do you dare to take action? If so, what can you do? Or… do you turn a blind eye? And what would that mean for you? +
Unfair reviewing refers to a reviewer abusing their position to promote their own interests or unreasonably disadvantage others. Unfair reviewing can occur during the process of peer review of journal manuscripts, grant applications or for colleagues applying for a promotion. +
Convenience sampling is defined as selecting participants based on accessibility or personal influence. Though it may be practical, it raises significant ethical concerns. While not inherently unethical when used transparently, their limitations mean researchers must critically assess the ethical risks involved and consider whether convenience-based approaches are justified. (1) +
Inadequate handling or storing of data or (bio)materials can lead to leaks in sensitive data and a breach in confidentiality. Personal data and (bio)materials should be stored in an organised manner that protects personal information and guarantees confidentiality. Other researchers should be able to access sufficient anonymized data to allow them to verify the results of the study. +
