Nine pitfalls of research misconduct
From The Embassy of Good Science
Revision as of 16:35, 21 October 2020 by 0000-0002-3240-4478 (talk | contribs)
ResourcesEducation
Nine pitfalls of research misconduct
What is this about?
This publication is about recornising 9 factors that lead to bad decisions by researchers and can be represented by the acronym TRAGEDIES. Each letter presents one factor, which poses for a specific behavioral aspect, that leads to pitfalls when conducting and analysing research data.
Why is this important?
By recognizing these pitfalls and responding appropriately can save a career and strengthen science.
For whom is this important?
Early career researchersJunior researchersPhD StudentsGraduate studentsUndergraduate studentsAcademic staff
What are the best practices?
Avoid the following pitfalls (behavioral aspect with an example): (a) Temptation - “Getting my name on this article would look really good on my CV”, (b) Rationalization - “It’s only a few data points, and those runs were flawed anyway”, (c) Ambition - “The better the story we can tell, the better a journal we can go for”, (d) Group and authority pressure - “The PI’s instructions don’t exactly match the protocol approved by the ethics review board, but she is the senior researcher”, (e) Entitlement - “I’ve worked so hard on this, and I know this works, and I need to get this publication”, (f) Deception - “I’m sure it would have turned out this way (if I had done it)”, (g) Incrementalism - “It’s only a single data point I’m excluding, and just this once”, (h) Embarrassment - “I don’t want to look foolish for not knowing how to do this”, (i) Stupid systems, “It counts more if we divide this manuscript into three submissions instead of just one”.
