About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

How journal editors can detect and deter scientific misconduct

with 9 comments

Misconduct happens. So what can journal editors do find and prevent it?

While we don’t claim to be experts in working on the other side of the fence — eg as editors — Ivan was flattered to be asked by session organizers at the Council of Science Editors to appear on a panel on the subject. He was joined on the panel by:

Their presentations were chock-full of good tips and data. Bradford, for example, said that Science had published 45 retractions since 1997. And Laine recommended copying all of a manuscript’s authors on every communication, which could help prevent author forgery that seems to be creeping into the literature.

So we hope their slides will be online soon. In the meantime, Ivan’s slides are here (scroll down a bit so that the entire first slide, and navigation, are visible below the CSE banner):

We look forward to your feedback.

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

May 2, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Excuse me, but I can’t see a link to see Ivan’s slides …

    Prof. Dr. Alexander Lerchl

    May 3, 2011 at 2:09 am

  2. Great work, Ivan!

    LNV

    May 3, 2011 at 8:55 am

    • Now it works. It was Mozilla Firefox without Flash Player. Internet explorer worked fine.

      Also, thanks, Ivan, very important contribution!

      Prof. Dr. Alexander Lerchl

      May 3, 2011 at 9:46 am

  3. The council should recognize that they are operating under the same assumptions as the editors of Social Text, of The Sokal Hoax fame. They think their intellect stands as an impenetrable barrier to, not only misconduct, but all forms of false information. Perhaps a dose of humility from time to time would help them improve their track record. A retraction should be every bit as detailed as any scientific paper submitted to them.

    Ginsberg

    May 3, 2011 at 6:21 pm

  4. Great work! Make the system accountable!

    Kyle

    May 5, 2011 at 2:50 pm

  5. Great work.

    Brad

    May 5, 2011 at 6:20 pm

  6. The most compelling thing the journals could do would be to enforce their own requirements on making PRIMARY data available as a condition of publication. I’ve lost track of how many papers don’t have e.g. the clinical outcomes and corresponding data for individual patient samples, even when these are supposed to be available. The Nature journals, JCO, Clinical Cancer Research are amongst the worst in this respect.

    A paper with no data attached to it belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Research, not a serious science journal.

    Andrew

    May 17, 2011 at 11:51 am


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33,801 other followers

%d bloggers like this: