The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Lecture by dr. Boris Barbour (PubPeer).

Netherlands Research Integrity Network NRIN

18 Oct 202143:09

EducationalLearning

32 Likes 10 Comments

TLDRThe transcript discusses the challenges of correcting scientific literature due to various conflicts of interest. It introduces PubPeer, a platform founded in 2012 that allows researchers to share critiques and insights on published articles, bypassing traditional, slow, and restricted methods. PubPeer has become a valuable tool for accelerating scientific progress and providing early warnings about potential issues in research, despite criticisms and the need for authors to engage more actively in the discussion.

Takeaways

🌍 The speaker expresses gratitude for being in Amsterdam and acknowledges that their views are personal and do not reflect those of their academic or professional affiliations.
🎓 The audience is polled about their PhD status and experience with correcting others' papers, highlighting the challenges in the scientific review process.
💡 Scientific progress relies on discussion, analysis, and criticism of ideas, but the current methods of correction are seen as restricted, slow, and ephemeral.
📉 Max Planck's paraphrased quote about science progressing one funeral at a time is used to illustrate the difficulty of correcting established scientific ideas.
🤔 The speaker discusses conflicts of interest at various levels in the scientific community, which can hinder the correction of scientific information.
🌐 The PubPeer platform is introduced as a solution to bypass conflicts of interest by allowing direct sharing of information among researchers.
🔍 PubPeer enables users to comment on published articles through a centralized, worldwide platform that allows anonymity and permanent records.
📋 The platform's guidelines and moderation rules are designed to ensure scientific, factual, and polite discourse relevant to the article.
🚨 PubPeer serves as an early warning system for researchers, providing a space for experts to weigh in on potential issues with scientific papers.
🔗 The platform has integrated with preprint servers and offers browser plugins to alert users to discussions as they browse and work.
📈 The speaker concludes by emphasizing PubPeer's role in accelerating scientific progress and protecting users by providing a space for detailed, immediate feedback on scientific content.

Q & A

What is the main purpose of PubPeer?
-The main purpose of PubPeer is to accelerate scientific progress by providing a platform for researchers to discuss, analyze, and critique scientific papers, thereby fostering a more transparent and self-correcting scientific environment.
How does PubPeer address the issue of potential conflicts of interest in scientific publishing?
-PubPeer aims to bypass potential conflicts of interest by allowing researchers to share information directly with each other, bypassing intermediaries that may have vested interests in not disclosing errors or issues with published works.
What type of comments are encouraged on PubPeer?
-PubPeer encourages scientific, factual, original, and polite comments that are relevant to the article being discussed. Comments should contribute constructively to the discussion and be publicly verifiable.
How does PubPeer handle anonymity and potential misconduct?
-PubPeer allows for anonymous commenting to protect users from potential career reprisals or legal threats. However, it has a series of guidelines and moderation rules to prevent misuse and ensure that comments are scientifically valid and factual.
What is the role of the PubPeer plugin?
-The PubPeer plugin alerts users to discussions and comments on papers as they browse or work, allowing them to stay informed about potential issues or discussions related to the papers they are interested in.
How does PubPeer integrate with preprint servers and other scientific databases?
-PubPeer has a bi-directional exchange of information with preprint servers and some curation services. It also links final publications to preprints that had comments, providing a unique service that enhances the scientific discourse around preprints and published works.
What is the general response rate of authors to comments on PubPeer?
-About 10% of papers with comments on PubPeer receive a reply from the authors. This rate has been increasing over time, but the quality and satisfaction of these replies can vary.
How does PubPeer contribute to the detection and handling of research misconduct?
-PubPeer provides a platform for users to raise concerns and discuss potential misconduct. While it doesn't directly lead to a high rate of retractions or corrections, it serves as an essential tool for researchers to be aware of issues that may not be addressed through traditional channels.
What is the typical process for correcting scientific literature according to the speaker?
-Traditional processes for correcting scientific literature include writing a new article, a letter to the editor, or using journal commenting systems. However, these methods can be restricted, slow, and sometimes ineffective, leading to the need for platforms like PubPeer.
How does the speaker describe the current state of scientific self-correction?
-The speaker describes the current state of scientific self-correction as challenging due to various conflicts of interest, a hostile environment for correcting science, and the slow and difficult nature of traditional correction methods.
What is the significance of the quote by Max Planck mentioned in the transcript?
-The paraphrased quote by Max Planck highlights the slow and often resistant nature of scientific progress, suggesting that change often only comes when established researchers retire or pass away, and new ideas have a chance to replace old ones.

Outlines

00:00

🎤 Introduction and Disclaimer

The speaker begins by acknowledging the absence of a visible audience and expresses gratitude to the organizers, Alex and Dorine. They clarify that their views are personal and do not represent their academic or professional affiliations. The speaker then poses a question to the audience about their experience with correcting others' papers, highlighting the challenges in scientific progress and the traditional methods of addressing issues within the scientific community.

05:03

🤔 The Challenges of Scientific Correction

The speaker delves into the difficulties of correcting scientific literature, noting that while science is meant to be self-correcting, the actual processes of discussing, reviewing, and critiquing are often restricted and slow. They mention the reluctance of authors, journals, and institutions to admit errors due to conflicts of interest. The speaker then introduces the concept of using the internet to bypass these conflicts and facilitate direct sharing of information among researchers.

10:04

🌐 Introducing PubPeer

The speaker introduces PubPeer, a platform founded in 2012 by Brandon Stell and later formalized into a non-profit foundation. PubPeer allows researchers to comment on published articles directly, with a focus on anonymity and rapid discussion. The platform has a moderation system in place to ensure that comments are scientific, factual, and relevant, and it provides a permanent and centralized platform for scientific discourse.

15:06

🔍 Discussing Scientific Issues on PubPeer

The speaker explains the types of discussions that can occur on PubPeer, ranging from technical details to serious issues of scientific validity. They provide examples of cases where PubPeer facilitated early warnings and critical discussions about problematic research, such as the discussion on proteins sensitive to magnetic fields and the scrutiny of images in scientific data. The speaker emphasizes the importance of anonymity in allowing for open and honest critique.

20:07

💡 The Role of PubPeer in Scientific Integrity

The speaker discusses the role of PubPeer in promoting scientific integrity by providing a platform for early warnings and critical feedback. They highlight the importance of rapid response to potential issues in research and the limitations of traditional channels in addressing these concerns. The speaker also addresses criticisms of anonymity on PubPeer and explains the platform's moderation rules and community surveillance to maintain the quality and integrity of discussions.

25:08

📊 PubPeer Statistics and Impact

The speaker shares statistics on PubPeer's usage, including the number of user comments, papers discussed, and journals covered. They discuss the platform's traffic and the balance between anonymous and trusted users. The speaker also mentions the integration of PubPeer with pre-print servers and the provision of email alerts and browser plugins to facilitate access to discussions and enhance the user experience.

30:09

🚀 Accelerating Scientific Progress

The speaker concludes by emphasizing PubPeer's aim to accelerate scientific progress by providing a fast and focused platform for granular feedback on scientific papers. They reiterate the importance of protecting users and readers of articles and the platform's commitment to ensuring that comments are useful and relevant. The speaker invites the audience to install PubPeer plugins and contribute to the scientific discourse by sharing their expertise.

35:09

📝 Q&A Session

The speaker engages in a question and answer session, addressing various topics such as the spread of PubPeer comments across scientific fields, the rate of author responses, and the proportion of comments dealing with research misconduct. They also discuss the integration of PubPeer with preprint servers and the potential for increased author engagement. The speaker encourages the audience to install PubPeer plugins and highlights the value of the platform in the scientific community.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Scientific progress

Scientific progress refers to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in the scientific community through research, discussion, and the development of new ideas or technologies. In the video, the speaker discusses the importance of open dialogue and critical analysis for the continuation of scientific progress, emphasizing that it often requires challenging existing notions and correcting the science when problems are identified.

💡PubPeer

PubPeer is an online platform introduced in the video that allows researchers to provide feedback, comments, and critiques on published scientific articles. It operates as a centralized and open forum that enables scientists to discuss and correct issues in scientific papers, thereby promoting transparency and integrity in research.

💡Anonymity

Anonymity in the context of the video refers to the ability of users on the PubPeer platform to make comments and critiques without revealing their identity. This feature is designed to protect users from potential retaliation or career repercussions, allowing for more candid and open discussions on scientific research.

💡Moderation

Moderation refers to the process of overseeing and regulating the content posted on a platform, such as PubPeer, to ensure that it adheres to certain standards and guidelines. In the video, the speaker explains that comments on PubPeer are moderated to maintain a high level of quality, relevance, and civility, and to prevent the spread of misinformation or baseless accusations.

💡Research integrity

Research integrity encompasses the ethical principles and practices that govern the conduct of research, including honesty, objectivity, and transparency. In the video, the concept of research integrity is central to the discussion, as the speaker talks about the challenges in maintaining it and the role of PubPeer in fostering an environment that encourages the open critique and correction of scientific work.

💡Open science

Open science refers to the movement towards making scientific research, data, and discussion accessible to all, promoting collaboration and transparency. The video touches on this concept as the speaker discusses the benefits of using the internet to share information and facilitate the self-correcting nature of science.

💡Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest occur when the interests or biases of individuals or institutions could potentially compromise the integrity or objectivity of their actions, particularly in the context of scientific research and publishing. In the video, the speaker points out that such conflicts can hinder the correction of scientific problems and the advancement of scientific knowledge.

💡Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

A Digital Object Identifier, or DOI, is a unique alphanumeric string assigned to digital documents, including scientific articles, to provide a persistent and unchanging link to their location on the internet. In the video, the speaker mentions that every published article has a DOI, which is used on PubPeer to create a discussion page for that specific paper.

💡Replication crisis

The replication crisis refers to the challenges faced by the scientific community in reproducing the results of certain studies, which calls into question the validity of the original findings. In the video, the speaker alludes to this issue by discussing the importance of critical analysis and the ability to question scientific findings through platforms like PubPeer.

💡Preprint servers

Preprint servers are online repositories where researchers can share their scientific papers before they undergo peer review and are published in academic journals. These servers allow for early dissemination of research findings and feedback from the scientific community. In the video, the speaker talks about the integration of PubPeer with preprint servers to enhance scientific discourse and feedback.

💡Early warning

Early warning in the context of the video refers to the ability of platforms like PubPeer to alert researchers and the scientific community to potential issues or concerns with published research findings. This allows for timely critique and correction, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge.

Highlights

The speaker discusses the challenges of correcting scientific literature and the slow pace of traditional methods.

The introduction of PubPeer, a platform designed to facilitate faster and more open scientific discussion and correction.

The importance of criticism and confrontation of ideas in the progress of science.

The impact of conflicts of interest at various levels in the scientific community on the willingness to correct errors.

The revolutionary use of the internet to bypass conflicts of interest and share information directly among researchers.

The founding of PubPeer in 2012 and its evolution into a formalized non-profit foundation in 2015.

PubPeer's functionality, allowing users to comment on published articles and raise questions or concerns.

The platform's ability to discuss anything scientific, from technical details to serious issues.

Examples of how PubPeer has allowed for early warnings and discussions on scientific findings, even leading to formal replications.

The role of anonymity in PubPeer in protecting users from career reprisals and intimidation.

The guidelines and moderation rules in place to ensure scientific, factual, and polite discussions on PubPeer.

The permanent right of reply given to authors on PubPeer and the prominence of their responses.

The practical effectiveness of PubPeer in accelerating scientific progress and providing early warnings.

The integration of PubPeer with preprint servers and the potential for linking final publications to preprints with comments.

The browser plugins and dashboards available for journals and institutions to monitor discussions on their papers.

The overall growth and reach of PubPeer, with comments on over 40,000 papers and a user base of around 120,000.

The speaker's emphasis on the importance of sharing insights and expertise to help others in the scientific community.

Transcripts

Browse More Related Video

4 NEW AI Tools Transforming Scientific Research You've Missed

What is Impact Factor?

✅Types of Research Papers | Journals or Conferences? | Journal vs Conference papers | Research paper

How to motivate yourself to change your behavior | Tali Sharot | TEDxCambridge

The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Lecture by dr. Elisabeth Bik.

Bias Detection (in Meta-Analyses)

Related Tags

Scientific Discourse Critical Analysis Open Dialogue PubPeer Platform Research Integrity Anonymity in Science Scientific Progress Community Engagement Post-Publication Review Online Collaboration