“Good Scientific Practice” – Ideals vs. Reality

Is science corrupted? Who is the culprit? What can we do to change that?

The more corrupt science gets, the more universities, funding agencies and journals inform us about how to maintain research integrity and good scientific practice. In their guidelines we learn, for instance, how to prevent misconduct, what qualifies for authorship, and how to establish proper research procedures. So theoretically, everyone should know how proper science ideally works, right?
Why are we then still faced with retractions, fraud, and questionable research practices?

"Piled Higher and Deeper" by Jorge Cham
www.phdcomics.com

As important as such policies may be, it is at least equally important to ask how realistic the implementation of such lofty goals is, given the current scientific system. It is naïve to assume that the whole system could be healed by the formulation of some guiding rules, but without also putting basic scientific principles up for discussion. The scientific publication system, for instance, is always deemed a cornerstone of science and has rarely been questioned. But it is also inevitably linked to the well-known pressure to publish, meaning that a scientist’s reputation is dependent on their number of publications, preferably in “high-impact” journals. However, such high-profile journals usually favor novel and interesting findings and are simply not interested in so-called “null findings” or replications, independent of the scientific accuracy and rigor of the work.
It is thus highly insincere when journals, on the one hand, demand proper research procedures, but, on the other hand, base their decision about the acceptance of manuscripts on completely different criteria. The enforcement of good scientific practice has to operate on the foundations of the scientific system, for example by the limitation of the power of publishing companies or alternative models of publishing.

It's time to take action!

There are dozens of other examples – like hierarchical structures that hamper scientists (especially young ones) from enforcing their rights, for instance in authorship disputes – showing that the sole formulation of codes of conduct is in itself not much more than a lip service. It is much more critical to establish the structures for their realization, even though this often implies striking new paths and throwing old structures overboard. The motto for the future should thus be: facta, non verba!

Anonymous, originally published March 2016 in Volume 09, Issue 1 "The Aging Brain"