Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science

From The Embassy of Good Science
Cases

Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science

What is this about?

The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case.

Why is this important?

There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
Virtues & Values
Research Area