Johannes Stricker & Armin Günther
Zeitschrift fur Psychologie
Published online: March 29, 2019
Abstract
Spectacular cases of scientific misconduct have contributed to concerns about the validity of published results in psychology. In our systematic review, we identified 16 studies reporting prevalence estimates of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychological research. Estimates from these studies varied due to differences in methods and scope. Unlike other disciplines, there was no reliable lower bound prevalence estimate of scientific misconduct based on identified cases available for psychology. Thus, we conducted an additional empirical investigation on the basis of retractions in the database PsycINFO. Our analyses showed that 0.82 per 10,000 journal articles in psychology were retracted due to scientific misconduct. Between the late 1990s and 2012, there was a steep increase. Articles retracted due to scientific misconduct were identified in 20 out of 22 PsycINFO subfields. These results show that measures aiming to reduce scientific misconduct should be promoted equally across all psychological subfields.
The research is here.
Showing posts with label Academic Integrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Academic Integrity. Show all posts
Friday, May 17, 2019
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Managing for Academic Integrity in Higher Education: Insights From Behavioral Ethics
Sheldene Simola
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology
Vol 3(1), Mar 2017, 43-57.
Despite the plethora of research on factors associated with academic dishonesty and ways of averting it, such dishonesty remains a significant concern. There is a need to identify overarching frameworks through which academic dishonesty might be understood, which might also suggest novel yet research-supported practical insights aimed at prevention. Hence, this article draws upon the burgeoning field of behavioral ethics to highlight a dual processing framework on academic dishonesty and to provide additional and sometimes counterintuitive practical insights into preventing this predicament. Six themes from within behavioral ethics are elaborated. These indicate the roles of reflective, conscious deliberation in academic (dis)honesty, as well as reflexive, nonconscious judgment; the roles of rationality and emotionality; and the ways in which conscious and nonconscious situational cues can cause individual moral identity or moral standards to become more or less salient to, and therefore influential in, decision-making. Practical insights and directions for future research are provided.
The article is here.
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology
Vol 3(1), Mar 2017, 43-57.
Despite the plethora of research on factors associated with academic dishonesty and ways of averting it, such dishonesty remains a significant concern. There is a need to identify overarching frameworks through which academic dishonesty might be understood, which might also suggest novel yet research-supported practical insights aimed at prevention. Hence, this article draws upon the burgeoning field of behavioral ethics to highlight a dual processing framework on academic dishonesty and to provide additional and sometimes counterintuitive practical insights into preventing this predicament. Six themes from within behavioral ethics are elaborated. These indicate the roles of reflective, conscious deliberation in academic (dis)honesty, as well as reflexive, nonconscious judgment; the roles of rationality and emotionality; and the ways in which conscious and nonconscious situational cues can cause individual moral identity or moral standards to become more or less salient to, and therefore influential in, decision-making. Practical insights and directions for future research are provided.
The article is here.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Medical errors: Disclosure styles, interpersonal forgiveness, and outcomes
Hannawa, A. F., Shigemoto, Y., & Little, T. (2016).
Social Science & Medicine, 156, 29-38.
Abstract
Rationale
This study investigates the intrapersonal and interpersonal factors and processes that are associated with patient forgiveness of a provider in the aftermath of a harmful medical error.
Objective
This study aims to examine what antecedents are most predictive of patient forgiveness and non-forgiveness, and the extent to which social-cognitive factors (i.e., fault attributions, empathy, rumination) influence the forgiveness process. Furthermore, the study evaluates the role of different disclosure styles in two different forgiveness models, and measures their respective causal outcomes.
Methods
In January 2011, 318 outpatients at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in the United States were randomly assigned to three hypothetical error disclosure vignettes that operationalized verbally effective disclosures with different nonverbal disclosure styles (i.e., high nonverbal involvement, low nonverbal involvement, written disclosure vignette without nonverbal information). All patients responded to the same forgiveness-related self-report measures after having been exposed to one of the vignettes.
Results
The results favored the proximity model of interpersonal forgiveness, which implies that factors more proximal in time to the act of forgiving (i.e., patient rumination and empathy for the offender) are more predictive of forgiveness and non-forgiveness than less proximal factors (e.g., relationship variables and offense-related factors such as the presence or absence of an apology). Patients' fault attributions had no effect on their forgiveness across conditions. The results evidenced sizeable effects of physician nonverbal involvement-patients in the low nonverbal involvement condition perceived the error as more severe, experienced the physician's apology as less sincere, were more likely to blame the physician, felt less empathy, ruminated more about the error, were less likely to forgive and more likely to avoid the physician, reported less closeness, trust, and satisfaction but higher distress, were more likely to change doctors, less compliant, and more likely to seek legal advice.
Conclusion
The findings of this study imply that physician nonverbal involvement during error disclosures stimulates a healing mechanism for patients and the physician-patient relationship. Physicians who disclose a medical error in a nonverbally uninvolved way, on the other hand, carry a higher malpractice risk and are less likely to promote healthy, reconciliatory outcomes.
The article is here.
Social Science & Medicine, 156, 29-38.
Abstract
Rationale
This study investigates the intrapersonal and interpersonal factors and processes that are associated with patient forgiveness of a provider in the aftermath of a harmful medical error.
Objective
This study aims to examine what antecedents are most predictive of patient forgiveness and non-forgiveness, and the extent to which social-cognitive factors (i.e., fault attributions, empathy, rumination) influence the forgiveness process. Furthermore, the study evaluates the role of different disclosure styles in two different forgiveness models, and measures their respective causal outcomes.
Methods
In January 2011, 318 outpatients at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in the United States were randomly assigned to three hypothetical error disclosure vignettes that operationalized verbally effective disclosures with different nonverbal disclosure styles (i.e., high nonverbal involvement, low nonverbal involvement, written disclosure vignette without nonverbal information). All patients responded to the same forgiveness-related self-report measures after having been exposed to one of the vignettes.
Results
The results favored the proximity model of interpersonal forgiveness, which implies that factors more proximal in time to the act of forgiving (i.e., patient rumination and empathy for the offender) are more predictive of forgiveness and non-forgiveness than less proximal factors (e.g., relationship variables and offense-related factors such as the presence or absence of an apology). Patients' fault attributions had no effect on their forgiveness across conditions. The results evidenced sizeable effects of physician nonverbal involvement-patients in the low nonverbal involvement condition perceived the error as more severe, experienced the physician's apology as less sincere, were more likely to blame the physician, felt less empathy, ruminated more about the error, were less likely to forgive and more likely to avoid the physician, reported less closeness, trust, and satisfaction but higher distress, were more likely to change doctors, less compliant, and more likely to seek legal advice.
Conclusion
The findings of this study imply that physician nonverbal involvement during error disclosures stimulates a healing mechanism for patients and the physician-patient relationship. Physicians who disclose a medical error in a nonverbally uninvolved way, on the other hand, carry a higher malpractice risk and are less likely to promote healthy, reconciliatory outcomes.
The article is here.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Business students: time for a compulsory ethics major?
Erica Cervini
Sydney Morning Herald
Originally posted on April 24, 2016
Here are two excerpts:
While it is commendable that universities are attempting to make students think about business ethics, one unit can only scratch the surface. And, then it depends on how much theory students are getting and to what extent this is applied to real-world cases.
Universities are failing students and society if they see ethics units as separate to students' accounting, banking and entrepreneurship subjects. Ethics has to be embedded in business and management subjects so that it is reinforced.
(cut)
She explained there are scholars who are against teaching business ethics while there are others who argue that students' views can be swayed in ethics classes.
Dr Issa concludes that business school academics need to be "more aware of our impact on those individuals whom we graduate into the business world, and what impact they have on their communities and societies".
The article is here.
Sydney Morning Herald
Originally posted on April 24, 2016
Here are two excerpts:
While it is commendable that universities are attempting to make students think about business ethics, one unit can only scratch the surface. And, then it depends on how much theory students are getting and to what extent this is applied to real-world cases.
Universities are failing students and society if they see ethics units as separate to students' accounting, banking and entrepreneurship subjects. Ethics has to be embedded in business and management subjects so that it is reinforced.
(cut)
She explained there are scholars who are against teaching business ethics while there are others who argue that students' views can be swayed in ethics classes.
Dr Issa concludes that business school academics need to be "more aware of our impact on those individuals whom we graduate into the business world, and what impact they have on their communities and societies".
The article is here.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Markingson case: University of Minnesota can't regain trust under current leadership
By Arne H. Carlson
The Star Tribune
Originally published April 10, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Ever since the violent suicide of Dan Markingson in 2004, the administration of the University of Minnesota has received repeated calls for the release of more details about the care and protection afforded the victim. These calls have come from faculty members at the university, from local community members and from researchers from around the world. But instead of being transparent and forthright, the administration created a standard response similar to that expressed by the university’s former general counsel, Mark Rotenberg: “As we’ve stated previously, the Markingson case has been exhaustively reviewed by Federal, State and academic bodies since 2004. The FDA, the Hennepin County District Court, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office and the University’s Institutional Review Board have all reviewed the case. None found fault with any of our faculty.”
The entire article is here.
The Star Tribune
Originally published April 10, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Ever since the violent suicide of Dan Markingson in 2004, the administration of the University of Minnesota has received repeated calls for the release of more details about the care and protection afforded the victim. These calls have come from faculty members at the university, from local community members and from researchers from around the world. But instead of being transparent and forthright, the administration created a standard response similar to that expressed by the university’s former general counsel, Mark Rotenberg: “As we’ve stated previously, the Markingson case has been exhaustively reviewed by Federal, State and academic bodies since 2004. The FDA, the Hennepin County District Court, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office and the University’s Institutional Review Board have all reviewed the case. None found fault with any of our faculty.”
The entire article is here.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Science’s Big Scandal
Even legitimate publishers are faking peer review.
By Charles Seife
Slate.com
Originally published April 1, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
When something at the core of scientific publishing begins to rot, the smell of corruption quickly spreads to all areas of science. This is because the act of publishing a scientific finding is an essential part of the practice of science itself. You want a job? Tenure? A promotion? A juicy grant? You need to have a list of peer-reviewed publications, for publications are the coin of the scientific realm.
This coin has worth because of a long-standing social contract between scientists and publishers. Scientists hand over their work to a publication for free, and even sometimes pay a fee of several hundred to several thousand dollars for the privilege. What’s more, scientists often feel duty-bound to vet their colleagues’ work for little or no compensation when a publication asks them to. In return, the publications promise a thorough review process that establishes that a published article has some degree of scientific merit. Just like modern coinage, most of scholarly publications’ value resides in a stamp of approval from a trustworthy body.
The entire article is here.
By Charles Seife
Slate.com
Originally published April 1, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
When something at the core of scientific publishing begins to rot, the smell of corruption quickly spreads to all areas of science. This is because the act of publishing a scientific finding is an essential part of the practice of science itself. You want a job? Tenure? A promotion? A juicy grant? You need to have a list of peer-reviewed publications, for publications are the coin of the scientific realm.
This coin has worth because of a long-standing social contract between scientists and publishers. Scientists hand over their work to a publication for free, and even sometimes pay a fee of several hundred to several thousand dollars for the privilege. What’s more, scientists often feel duty-bound to vet their colleagues’ work for little or no compensation when a publication asks them to. In return, the publications promise a thorough review process that establishes that a published article has some degree of scientific merit. Just like modern coinage, most of scholarly publications’ value resides in a stamp of approval from a trustworthy body.
The entire article is here.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Fresh Misconduct Charges Hit Dutch Social Psychology
By Frank van Kolfschooten
Science
Originally published May 6, 2014
Scientists here are still searching their souls about two previous scandals--involving Diederik Stapel of Tilburg University in 2011 and Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University in Rotterdam a year later.
Now they have learned that a national research integrity panel has found evidence of data manipulation in the work of Jens Forster, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam (UvA).
The university has already announced that it will request the retraction of one of Forster's articles.
The case is drawing widespread international attention as well, in part because Forster, who's German and came to Amsterdam in 2007, enjoys a sterling reputation.
"He is among the most creative and influential social psychologists of his generation," says Jeffrey Sherman of the University of California, Davis.
The entire article is here, behind a paywall.
Science
Originally published May 6, 2014
Scientists here are still searching their souls about two previous scandals--involving Diederik Stapel of Tilburg University in 2011 and Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University in Rotterdam a year later.
Now they have learned that a national research integrity panel has found evidence of data manipulation in the work of Jens Forster, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam (UvA).
The university has already announced that it will request the retraction of one of Forster's articles.
The case is drawing widespread international attention as well, in part because Forster, who's German and came to Amsterdam in 2007, enjoys a sterling reputation.
"He is among the most creative and influential social psychologists of his generation," says Jeffrey Sherman of the University of California, Davis.
The entire article is here, behind a paywall.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Submitting a manuscript for peer review - integrity, integrity, integrity.
Sean P. Murphy, Christopher Bulman, Behnam Shariati and Laura Hausmann-on behalf of the ISN Publications Committee
J Neurochem. 2013 Dec 26. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2013.12644.x.
Abstract
Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published papers over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications amongst submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of 'spoiled' manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms, but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe.
Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story
Mark Twain
While imagination is the source of vibrant fiction, the ‘stories’ we offer in manuscripts submitted for publication have to be faithful. With the beginning of a New Year, it seems appropriate to re-state current Journal of Neurochemistry policies on submissions and, on behalf of the International Society for Neurochemistry, to demand integrity from authors offering manuscripts for scientific review. While the comments here are directed specifically at corresponding authors, the contract entered into with the submission of any manuscript also demands integrity from reviewers, editors and publishers, who
have to be seen to act impartially and promptly in reaching their decisions.
The entire article is here.
J Neurochem. 2013 Dec 26. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2013.12644.x.
Abstract
Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published papers over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications amongst submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of 'spoiled' manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms, but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe.
Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story
Mark Twain
While imagination is the source of vibrant fiction, the ‘stories’ we offer in manuscripts submitted for publication have to be faithful. With the beginning of a New Year, it seems appropriate to re-state current Journal of Neurochemistry policies on submissions and, on behalf of the International Society for Neurochemistry, to demand integrity from authors offering manuscripts for scientific review. While the comments here are directed specifically at corresponding authors, the contract entered into with the submission of any manuscript also demands integrity from reviewers, editors and publishers, who
have to be seen to act impartially and promptly in reaching their decisions.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations
The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed as part of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 5-8 May 2013, in Montréal, as a global guide to the responsible conduct of research. It is not a regulatory document and does not represent the official policies of the countries or organizations that funded or participated in the Conference.
Preamble.
Research collaborations that cross national, institutional, disciplinary and sector boundaries are important to the advancement of knowledge worldwide. Such collaborations present special challenges for the responsible conduct of research, because they may involve substantial differences in regulatory and legal systems, organizational and funding structures, research cultures, and approaches to training. It is critically important, therefore, that researchers be aware of and able to address such differences, as well as issues related to integrity that might arise in cross-boundary research collaborations. Researchers should adhere to the professional responsibilities set forth in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. In addition, the following responsibilities are particularly relevant to collaborating partners at the individual and institutional levels and fundamental to the integrity of collaborative research. Fostering the integrity of collaborative research is the responsibility of all individual and institutional partners.
The entire statement is here.
Preamble.
Research collaborations that cross national, institutional, disciplinary and sector boundaries are important to the advancement of knowledge worldwide. Such collaborations present special challenges for the responsible conduct of research, because they may involve substantial differences in regulatory and legal systems, organizational and funding structures, research cultures, and approaches to training. It is critically important, therefore, that researchers be aware of and able to address such differences, as well as issues related to integrity that might arise in cross-boundary research collaborations. Researchers should adhere to the professional responsibilities set forth in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. In addition, the following responsibilities are particularly relevant to collaborating partners at the individual and institutional levels and fundamental to the integrity of collaborative research. Fostering the integrity of collaborative research is the responsibility of all individual and institutional partners.
The entire statement is here.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Professor faked 61 pieces of research: Volkskrant
Dutch News
Originally posted September 23, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
Mart Bax, who retired in 2002, was involved in fraud for at least 15 years, publishing invented research, recycling his work under other names and lying about awards and other work, the Volkskrant says.
The entire story is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this information.
Originally posted September 23, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
Mart Bax, who retired in 2002, was involved in fraud for at least 15 years, publishing invented research, recycling his work under other names and lying about awards and other work, the Volkskrant says.
The entire story is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this information.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior
Psychologists find deep connection between scientific method and morality
By Piercarlo Valdesolo
Scientific America
Originally published August 27, 2013
Public opinion towards science has made headlines over the past several years for a variety of reasons — mostly negative. High profile cases of academic dishonesty and disputes over funding have left many questioning the integrity and societal value of basic science, while accusations of politically motivated research fly from left and right. There is little doubt that science is value-laden. Allegiances to theories and ideologies can skew the kinds of hypotheses tested and the methods used to test them. These, however, are errors in the application of the method, not the method itself. In other words, it’s possible that public opinion towards science more generally might be relatively unaffected by the misdeeds and biases of individual scientists. In fact, given the undeniable benefits scientific progress yielded, associations with the process of scientific inquiry may be quite positive.
The entire story is here.
By Piercarlo Valdesolo
Scientific America
Originally published August 27, 2013
Public opinion towards science has made headlines over the past several years for a variety of reasons — mostly negative. High profile cases of academic dishonesty and disputes over funding have left many questioning the integrity and societal value of basic science, while accusations of politically motivated research fly from left and right. There is little doubt that science is value-laden. Allegiances to theories and ideologies can skew the kinds of hypotheses tested and the methods used to test them. These, however, are errors in the application of the method, not the method itself. In other words, it’s possible that public opinion towards science more generally might be relatively unaffected by the misdeeds and biases of individual scientists. In fact, given the undeniable benefits scientific progress yielded, associations with the process of scientific inquiry may be quite positive.
The entire story is here.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
DSM-5 Could Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health
By Elayne Clift
OpEdNews.com
Originally published on December 22, 2012
Here are some excerpts:
Feminist therapists are concerned for women in particular. Diagnoses such as Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Sexual Dysfunction have disparaged women and compromised them in troubling ways. For example, one expert says that BPD is almost exclusively applied to women because its symptoms relate to emotion and anger. Some women with the diagnosis have histories of abuse and may have difficulty expressing anger "appropriately." Such vulnerable women need to have their coping styles better understood before assumptions are made about their behavior.
Similarly, "sexual dysfunction" among women is often based on assumptions about what constitutes normal sexual behavior. "If only performance failures or lack of desire count, the entire context of sexual activity becomes invisible and of secondary importance," says one member of the Association of Women in Psychology (AWP).
Another AWP member focuses on classism in psychiatric diagnosis. "Poor women and women of color are particularly likely to be misdiagnosed or encounter bias in treatment," she says. "Therapists may interpret chronic lateness or missed appointments as hostility or resistance to treatment rather than the outcomes of unreliable transportation, irregular shift work, and unpredictable child care arrangements."
The entire article is here.
OpEdNews.com
Originally published on December 22, 2012
Here are some excerpts:
Feminist therapists are concerned for women in particular. Diagnoses such as Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Sexual Dysfunction have disparaged women and compromised them in troubling ways. For example, one expert says that BPD is almost exclusively applied to women because its symptoms relate to emotion and anger. Some women with the diagnosis have histories of abuse and may have difficulty expressing anger "appropriately." Such vulnerable women need to have their coping styles better understood before assumptions are made about their behavior.
Similarly, "sexual dysfunction" among women is often based on assumptions about what constitutes normal sexual behavior. "If only performance failures or lack of desire count, the entire context of sexual activity becomes invisible and of secondary importance," says one member of the Association of Women in Psychology (AWP).
Another AWP member focuses on classism in psychiatric diagnosis. "Poor women and women of color are particularly likely to be misdiagnosed or encounter bias in treatment," she says. "Therapists may interpret chronic lateness or missed appointments as hostility or resistance to treatment rather than the outcomes of unreliable transportation, irregular shift work, and unpredictable child care arrangements."
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research
High-profile cases and modern technology are putting scientific deceit under the microscope
By Alok Jha
The Guardian
Originally published September 13, 2012
Dirk Smeesters had spent several years of his career as a social psychologist at Erasmus University in Rotterdam studying how consumers behaved in different situations. Did colour have an effect on what they bought? How did death-related stories in the media affect how people picked products? And was it better to use supermodels in cosmetics adverts than average-looking women?
The questions are certainly intriguing, but unfortunately for anyone wanting truthful answers, some of Smeesters' work turned out to be fraudulent. The psychologist, who admitted "massaging" the data in some of his papers, resigned from his position in June after being investigated by his university, which had been tipped off by Uri Simonsohn from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Simonsohn carried out an independent analysis of the data and was suspicious of how perfect many of Smeesters' results seemed when, statistically speaking, there should have been more variation in his measurements.
The case, which led to two scientific papers being retracted, came on the heels of an even bigger fraud, uncovered last year, perpetrated by the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel. He was found to have fabricated data for years and published it in at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, including a report in the journal Science about how untidy environments may encourage discrimination.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Studies Find More Students Cheating, With High Achievers No Exception
By Richard Perez-Pena
The New York Times
Originally published September 7, 2012
The New York Times
Originally published September 7, 2012
Large-scale cheating has been uncovered over the last year at some of the nation’s most competitive schools, like Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan, the Air Force Academy and, most recently, Harvard.
Studies of student behavior and attitudes show that a majority of students violate standards of academic integrity to some degree, and that high achievers are just as likely to do it as others. Moreover, there is evidence that the problem has worsened over the last few decades.
Experts say the reasons are relatively simple: Cheating has become easier and more widely tolerated, and both schools and parents have failed to give students strong, repetitive messages about what is allowed and what is prohibited.
“I don’t think there’s any question that students have become more competitive, under more pressure, and, as a result, tend to excuse more from themselves and other students, and that’s abetted by the adults around them,” said Donald L. McCabe, a professor at the Rutgers University Business School, and a leading researcher on cheating.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Anti-Gay Bias or Academic Freedom?
By Scott Jaschik
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published September 4, 2012
The gay alumni group at Franciscan University of Steubenville last week tried to draw attention to a course it views as anti-gay, and ended up embroiled in disputes not only over that course but over the group's right to link itself to the university in a public way.
Franciscan is a university that prides itself on strict adherence to Roman Catholic teachings, and the alumni group has no official connection to the university. But it has called itself, based on its members and their affiliations, Franciscan University Gay Alumni and Allies. Under that name, the group last week issued a news release questioning why the university offers a course that links homosexuality with forms of deviant behavior.
The course description, pulled from the university's catalog, states: "DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior."
The entire story is here.
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published September 4, 2012
The gay alumni group at Franciscan University of Steubenville last week tried to draw attention to a course it views as anti-gay, and ended up embroiled in disputes not only over that course but over the group's right to link itself to the university in a public way.
Franciscan is a university that prides itself on strict adherence to Roman Catholic teachings, and the alumni group has no official connection to the university. But it has called itself, based on its members and their affiliations, Franciscan University Gay Alumni and Allies. Under that name, the group last week issued a news release questioning why the university offers a course that links homosexuality with forms of deviant behavior.
The course description, pulled from the university's catalog, states: "DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior."
The entire story is here.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Harvard accuses 125 students of cheating
By Mary Carmichael
Boston.com
Originally published August 31, 2012
Harvard University is investigating 125 students accused of collaborating on a spring take-home final exam, in what could prove to be the largest Ivy League cheating scandal in recent memory.
Nearly half the students in an introductory government class are suspected of jointly coming up with answers or copying off one another. Groups of students appear to have worked together on responses to short questions and an essay assignment, violating a no-collaboration policy that was printed on the exam itself, said Jay Harris, Harvard’s dean of undergraduate education.
Although no students appear to have lifted text from outside sources, some apparently plagiarized their classmates’ work, submitting answers that were either identical or “too close for comfort,” Harris said Thursday.
A teaching fellow noticed the similarities in May while grading a subset of the exams. He alerted the professor, who approached the college’s Administrative Board, the body that oversees student behavior. The board was worried enough to spend the summer interviewing some of the students and reviewing every exam in the class.
The students whose tests were flagged as problematic — nearly 2 percent of the college’s approximately 6,700 undergraduates — have been notified and will appear before the board individually in the next few weeks, Harris said. Some may be exonerated, but those found guilty could face a range of punishments up to yearlong suspensions.
The entire story is here.
Boston.com
Originally published August 31, 2012
Harvard University is investigating 125 students accused of collaborating on a spring take-home final exam, in what could prove to be the largest Ivy League cheating scandal in recent memory.
Nearly half the students in an introductory government class are suspected of jointly coming up with answers or copying off one another. Groups of students appear to have worked together on responses to short questions and an essay assignment, violating a no-collaboration policy that was printed on the exam itself, said Jay Harris, Harvard’s dean of undergraduate education.
Although no students appear to have lifted text from outside sources, some apparently plagiarized their classmates’ work, submitting answers that were either identical or “too close for comfort,” Harris said Thursday.
A teaching fellow noticed the similarities in May while grading a subset of the exams. He alerted the professor, who approached the college’s Administrative Board, the body that oversees student behavior. The board was worried enough to spend the summer interviewing some of the students and reviewing every exam in the class.
The students whose tests were flagged as problematic — nearly 2 percent of the college’s approximately 6,700 undergraduates — have been notified and will appear before the board individually in the next few weeks, Harris said. Some may be exonerated, but those found guilty could face a range of punishments up to yearlong suspensions.
The entire story is here.
Monday, August 20, 2012
How to Train Graduate Students in Research Ethics: Lessons From 6 Universities
What do graduate students consider ethical research conduct? It depends on their adviser, says a new report from the Council of Graduate Schools.
According to the report, which is being released today, graduate students overly rely on their advisers, rather than university resources, for guidance on thorny issues such as spotting self-plagiarism, identifying research misconduct, or understanding conflicts of interest.
The findings come three years after the National Science Foundation said that it's up to universities to make sure researchers receive ethics training required by the federal government.
Graduate students who were surveyed as part of the council's Project for Scholarly Integrity felt they had a good grasp of research ethics, said Daniel Denecke, associate vice president for programs and best practices at the Council of Graduate Schools. But "when we really drill down," he said, "we see a real need on the part of students to know how to handle perceived misconduct."
The report, "Research and Scholarly Integrity in Graduate Education: A Comprehensive Approach," outlines the findings from the project, which began in 2008 and is financed by the federal Office of Research Integrity.
The entire story is here.
According to the report, which is being released today, graduate students overly rely on their advisers, rather than university resources, for guidance on thorny issues such as spotting self-plagiarism, identifying research misconduct, or understanding conflicts of interest.
The findings come three years after the National Science Foundation said that it's up to universities to make sure researchers receive ethics training required by the federal government.
Graduate students who were surveyed as part of the council's Project for Scholarly Integrity felt they had a good grasp of research ethics, said Daniel Denecke, associate vice president for programs and best practices at the Council of Graduate Schools. But "when we really drill down," he said, "we see a real need on the part of students to know how to handle perceived misconduct."
The report, "Research and Scholarly Integrity in Graduate Education: A Comprehensive Approach," outlines the findings from the project, which began in 2008 and is financed by the federal Office of Research Integrity.
The entire story is here.
Integrating Integrity
By Kaustuv Basu
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published August 14, 2012
Graduate schools need to do a better job teaching their students about responsible and ethical research, according to a report being released today by the Council on Graduate Schools.
If they do, they will have more success preventing research misconduct, the report states.
The report, Research and Scholarly Integrity in Graduate Education: A Comprehensive Approach, suggests that university administrators should work with faculty members and graduate students across disciplines to boost research integrity. For example, a successful workshop offered in one discipline can be adapted for another discipline or a course in research ethics taught intermittently by one professor could be taught by other faculty members.
The entire article is here.
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published August 14, 2012
Graduate schools need to do a better job teaching their students about responsible and ethical research, according to a report being released today by the Council on Graduate Schools.
If they do, they will have more success preventing research misconduct, the report states.
The report, Research and Scholarly Integrity in Graduate Education: A Comprehensive Approach, suggests that university administrators should work with faculty members and graduate students across disciplines to boost research integrity. For example, a successful workshop offered in one discipline can be adapted for another discipline or a course in research ethics taught intermittently by one professor could be taught by other faculty members.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
*Psychological Science* has scheduled an article for publication in a future issue of the journal: "Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling."
The authors are Leslie K. John of Harvard University, George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, & Drazen Prelec of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Here is the abstract:
Although cases of overt scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently (Altman, 2006; Deer, 2011; Steneck, 2002, 2006), exploitation of the gray area of acceptable practice is certainly much more prevalent, and may be more damaging to the academic enterprise in the long run, than outright fraud.
Questionable research practices (QRPs), such as excluding data points on the basis of post hoc criteria, can spuriously increase the likelihood of finding evidence in support of a hypothesis.
Just how dramatic these effects can be was demonstrated by Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011) in a series of experiments and simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis.
QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage.
QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception.
Concerns over QRPs have been mounting (Crocker, 2011; Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011; Marshall, 2000; Sovacool, 2008; Sterba, 2006; Wicherts, 2011), and several studies--many of which have focused on medical research--have assessed their prevalence (Gardner, Lidz, & Hartwig, 2005; Geggie, 2001; Henry et al., 2005; List, Bailey, Euzent, & Martin, 2001; Martinson, Anderson, & de Vries, 2005; Swazey, Anderson, & Louis, 1993).
In the study reported here, we measured the percentage of psychologists who have engaged in QRPs.
As with any unethical or socially stigmatized behavior, self-reported survey data are likely to underrepresent true prevalence.
(cut)
The study "surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices."
The article reports that the findings "point to the same conclusion: A surprisingly high percentage of psychologists admit to having engaged in QRPs."
(cut)
Most of the respondents in our study believed in the integrity of their own research and judged practices they had engaged in to be acceptable.
However, given publication pressures and professional ambitions, the inherent ambiguity of the defensibility of "questionable" research practices, and the well-documented ubiquity of motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990), researchers may not be in the best position to judge the defensibility of their own behavior.
This could in part explain why the most egregious practices in our survey (e.g., falsifying data) appear to be less common than the relatively less questionable ones (e.g., failing to report all of a study's conditions).
It is easier to generate a post hoc explanation to justify removing nuisance data points than it is to justify outright data falsification, even though both practices produce similar consequences.
(cut)
Another excerpt: "Given the findings of our study, it comes as no surprise that many researchers have expressed concerns over failures to replicate published results (Bower & Mayer, 1985; Crabbe, Wahlsten, & Dudek, 1999; Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleeremans, 2012, Enserink, 1999; Galak, LeBoeuf, Nelson, & Simmons, 2012; Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b; Palmer, 2000; Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999)."
(cut)
More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself.
This can lead to a "race to the bottom," with questionable research begetting even more questionable research.
----------------------
Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.
The abstract and article are here.
The authors are Leslie K. John of Harvard University, George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, & Drazen Prelec of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Here is the abstract:
Cases of clear scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently, but less flagrantly questionable research practices may be more prevalent and, ultimately, more damaging to the academic enterprise. Using an anonymous elicitation format supplemented by incentives for honest reporting, we surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices. The impact of truth-telling incentives on self-admissions of questionable research practices was positive, and this impact was greater for practices that respondents judged to be less defensible. Combining three different estimation methods, we found that the percentage of respondents who have engaged in questionable practices was surprisingly high. This finding suggests that some questionable practices may constitute the prevailing research norm.Here's how the article starts:
Although cases of overt scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently (Altman, 2006; Deer, 2011; Steneck, 2002, 2006), exploitation of the gray area of acceptable practice is certainly much more prevalent, and may be more damaging to the academic enterprise in the long run, than outright fraud.
Questionable research practices (QRPs), such as excluding data points on the basis of post hoc criteria, can spuriously increase the likelihood of finding evidence in support of a hypothesis.
Just how dramatic these effects can be was demonstrated by Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011) in a series of experiments and simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis.
QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage.
QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception.
Concerns over QRPs have been mounting (Crocker, 2011; Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011; Marshall, 2000; Sovacool, 2008; Sterba, 2006; Wicherts, 2011), and several studies--many of which have focused on medical research--have assessed their prevalence (Gardner, Lidz, & Hartwig, 2005; Geggie, 2001; Henry et al., 2005; List, Bailey, Euzent, & Martin, 2001; Martinson, Anderson, & de Vries, 2005; Swazey, Anderson, & Louis, 1993).
In the study reported here, we measured the percentage of psychologists who have engaged in QRPs.
As with any unethical or socially stigmatized behavior, self-reported survey data are likely to underrepresent true prevalence.
(cut)
The study "surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices."
The article reports that the findings "point to the same conclusion: A surprisingly high percentage of psychologists admit to having engaged in QRPs."
(cut)
Most of the respondents in our study believed in the integrity of their own research and judged practices they had engaged in to be acceptable.
However, given publication pressures and professional ambitions, the inherent ambiguity of the defensibility of "questionable" research practices, and the well-documented ubiquity of motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990), researchers may not be in the best position to judge the defensibility of their own behavior.
This could in part explain why the most egregious practices in our survey (e.g., falsifying data) appear to be less common than the relatively less questionable ones (e.g., failing to report all of a study's conditions).
It is easier to generate a post hoc explanation to justify removing nuisance data points than it is to justify outright data falsification, even though both practices produce similar consequences.
(cut)
Another excerpt: "Given the findings of our study, it comes as no surprise that many researchers have expressed concerns over failures to replicate published results (Bower & Mayer, 1985; Crabbe, Wahlsten, & Dudek, 1999; Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleeremans, 2012, Enserink, 1999; Galak, LeBoeuf, Nelson, & Simmons, 2012; Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b; Palmer, 2000; Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999)."
(cut)
More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself.
This can lead to a "race to the bottom," with questionable research begetting even more questionable research.
----------------------
Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.
The abstract and article are here.
Report Finds Academic Fraud Evidence in UNC Department
By Dane Kane
http://www.newsobserver.com/
Originally published May 6, 2012
An internal investigation into UNC-Chapel Hill’s Department of African and Afro-American Studies has found evidence of academic fraud involving more than 50 classes that range from no-show professors to unauthorized grade changes for students.
One of the no-show classes is the Swahili course taken by former football player Michael McAdoo that prompted NCAA findings of impermissible tutoring, and drew more controversy when the final paper he submitted was found to have been heavily plagiarized.
The investigation found many of the suspect classes were taught in the summer by former department chairman Julius Nyang’oro, who resigned from that post in September. The university now says Nyang’oro, 57, who was the department’s first-ever chairman, is retiring July 1.
“Professor Nyang’oro offered to retire, and we agreed that was in the best interest of the department, the college and the university,” said Nancy Davis, associate vice chancellor for university relations.
The entire story is here.
http://www.newsobserver.com/
Originally published May 6, 2012
An internal investigation into UNC-Chapel Hill’s Department of African and Afro-American Studies has found evidence of academic fraud involving more than 50 classes that range from no-show professors to unauthorized grade changes for students.One of the no-show classes is the Swahili course taken by former football player Michael McAdoo that prompted NCAA findings of impermissible tutoring, and drew more controversy when the final paper he submitted was found to have been heavily plagiarized.
The investigation found many of the suspect classes were taught in the summer by former department chairman Julius Nyang’oro, who resigned from that post in September. The university now says Nyang’oro, 57, who was the department’s first-ever chairman, is retiring July 1.
“Professor Nyang’oro offered to retire, and we agreed that was in the best interest of the department, the college and the university,” said Nancy Davis, associate vice chancellor for university relations.
The entire story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)