ScienceGeist

Academics and editors need to stop pretending that software always catches recycled text and start reading more carefully, says Debora Weber-Wulff.

Research needs an authoritative forum to hash out collective problems, argue C. K. Gunsalus, Marcia K. McNutt and colleagues.

The newish 'quarterly review of science' sometimes muddies the waters between science and political ideology. It is funded by Peter Thiel.

Concern for and interest in research integrity has increased significantly during recent decades, both in academic and in policy discourse.

Scientific journals' creation of dedicated positions for rooting out misconduct before publication comes amid growing awareness of such issues.

Almost 90% of academic clinical trials are not reported promptly to European registry.

The pharmaceutical industry gets a bad press. Some of the criticism is surely deserved, but the widespread notion that academia is morally superior is ridiculous, says Richard Grant.

The new version of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity will be published today.

The battle for evidence-based reason may have to move elsewhere, says Jenny Rohn.

Scientists have the public’s trust, so the swell of fake news shouldn’t put them off communicating, says CEO of Science Media Centre.

How the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology became a multimillion dollar organization promoting bullshit science through fake conferences and journals.

Granting bodies have to do more to stop corporate money from distorting science, says Linda Bauld.

University manipulated test scores for more than a decade to ensure more men became doctors.

An ambitious project that set out nearly 5 years ago to replicate experiments from 50 high-impact cancer biology papers, but gradually shrank that number, now expects to complete just 18 studies.

Oaths have their value, but checklists will help put principles into practice.

What are researchers to do when they lose confidence in their previously published work? A new project has an answer. Will it help the replication crisis?

The country’s highest executive body issues clear guidelines for dealing with scientific misconduct.

New national guidelines spell out punishment for plagiarism, fabrication of data and research conclusions, ghostwriting and peer review manipulation.

In June 2017, PSI was made aware of allegations that members of its staff had submitted an article containing aspects of scientific misconduct to a scientific journal.  A preliminary review by experts showed that the allegations raised were solid.

A bit over 20 years ago, in February 1998, Andrew Wakefield published his infamous article in Lancet, which was eventually retracted in 2010. He stated that "onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination in eight of the 12 children."

Questionable research practices are not fraud, and they're not cause for panic. But they do give us some hints about how we can make science more robust.

After discovering a pattern of fraudulent papers from China, an Australian oncologist aims to expand her watchdog project and keep the retractions coming.

John Ioannidis discusses the potential effects on clinical research of a 2017 proposal to lower the default P value threshold for statistical significance from .05 to .005 as a means to reduce false-positive findings.

Overview of recent evidence suggesting that the integrity crisis narrative is mistaken - a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling.

Should we treat preprints the same way that we treat reviewed and published material? If so, how can we make that clear to readers?