Nature and causes of questionable research practice and research misconduct from a philosophy of science perspective

REFERENCES

• Agazzi, E. (2018). Philosophy of science and ethics. Axiomathes, 28(6), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-018-9408-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade, C. (2021). Harking, cherry-picking, P-Hacking, fishing expeditions, and data dredging and mining as questionable research practices. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 82(1), 20f13804. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.20f13804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronova, E. (2009). In search of the soul in science: Medical ethics’ appropriation of philosophy of science in the 1970s. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 31(1), 5–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bility, M. T., Agarwal, Y., Ho, S., Castronova, I., Beatty, C., Biradar, S., Narala, V., Periyapatna, N., Chen, Y., & Nachega, J. (2020). WITHDRAWN: Can traditional Chinese medicine provide insights into controlling the COVID-19 pandemic: Serpentinization-induced lithospheric long-wavelength magnetic anomalies in proterozoic bedrocks in a weakened geomagnetic field mediate the aberrant transformation of biogenic molecules in COVID-19 via magnetic catalysis. The Science of the Total Environment, 142830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142830
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bird, A. (2022). Thomas Kuhn. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/thomas-kuhn
   Google Scholar
• Breuning, M., Backstrom, J., Brannon, J., Gross, B. I., & Widmeier, M. (2015). Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their Peers’ work. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(4), 595–600. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096515000827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broad, W. J., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the Truth. Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Broad, W. J., & Wade, N. (1983). Betrayers of the truth. Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Christopher, J. (2021). The raw truth about paper mills. FEBS Letters, 595(13), 1751–1757. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.14143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creath, R. (2022). Logical empiricism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/
   Google Scholar
• De Block, A., Delaere, P., & Hens, K. (2022). Philosophy of science can prevent manslaughter. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 19(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10198-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vrieze, J. (2021). Large survey finds questionable research practices are common. Science, 373(6552), 265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.373.6552.265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., Feely, R. A., & Kleypas, J. A. (2009). Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem. Annual Review of Marine Science, 1(1), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Pre.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, J. (2022). Moral theory. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-theory/
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, K. C. (2017). A tapestry of values. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Enserink, M. (2017). Swedish plastics study fabricated, panel finds. Science, 358(6369), 1367. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.358.6369.1367
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enserink, M. (2022). Star marine ecologist committed misconduct, university says. https://www-science-org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says
   Google Scholar
• Fox, C. W., Albert, A. Y. K., & Vines, T. H. (2017). Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: A test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franklin, A. (1984). Forging, cooking, trimming, and riding on the bandwagon. American Journal of Physics, 52(9), 786–793. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.13551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, A. D. (1981). Millikan’s published and unpublished data on oil drops. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11(2), 185. https://doi.org/10.2307/27757478
   Google Scholar
• Galloway, T., & Lewis, C. (2017). Marine microplastics. Current Biology, 27(11), R445–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guinotte, J. M., & Fabry, V. J. (2008). Ocean acidification and its potential effects on marine ecosystems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134(1), 320–342. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.013
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hackett, R., & Kelly, S. (2020). Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills. Biology Open, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.056556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biology, 13(3), e1002106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, R. C. (2004). Data selection and responsible conduct: Was Millikan a fraud? Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(4), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0044-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerasidou, A., & Parker, M. (2014). Does science need bioethicists? Ethics and science collaboration in biomedical research. Research Ethics, 10(4), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114554252
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kerr, N. L. (1998). Harking: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuroki, T. (2018). New classification of research misconduct from the viewpoint of truth, trust, and risk. Accountability in Research, 25(7–8), 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1548283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laplane, L., Mantovani, P., Adolphs, R., Chang, H., Mantovani, A., McFall-Ngai, M., Rovelli, C., Sober, E., & Pradeu, T. (2019). Why science needs philosophy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(10), 3948–3952. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900357116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohse, S., Wasmer, M. S., & Reydon, T. A. C. (2020). Integrating philosophy of science into research on ethical, legal and social issues in the life sciences. Perspectives on Science, 28(6), 700–736. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00357
   Google Scholar
• Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mahner, M. (2007). Demarcating science from non-science. In T. A. Kuipers (Ed.), General philosophy of science (pp. 515–575). North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. A. (1913). On the Elementary Electrical Charge and the Avogadro Constant. Physical Review, 11(2), 109–143.
   Google Scholar
• Munafò, M., Nosek, B., Bishop, D., Button, K., Chambers, C., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E., Ware, J., & Ioannidis, J. (2018). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niaz, M. (2005). An appraisal of the controversial nature of the oil drop experiment: Is closure possible? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(4), 681–702. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axi136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oftedal, G. (2014). The role of philosophy of science in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): The case of nanomedicine. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0005-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ortega, J. (2021). Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(5), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. (1996). Social epistemology and the ethics of research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 27(4), 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(96)00043-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. (2020). What Is ethics in research & why is it important?. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
   Google Scholar
• Romero, F. (2019). Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis. Philosophy Compass, 14(11), e12633. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen, S. M. (2015). Why natural science needs phenomenological philosophy. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 119(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.06.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, M., Berlino, M., Mangano, M. C., & Sarà, G. (2021). Microplastics and the functional traits of fishes: A global meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 27(12), 2645–2655. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15570
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speijer, D. (2020). Is popperian falsification useful in biology? BioEssays, 42(3), 2000003. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. (2009). Why cognitive science needs philosophy and vice versa. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01016.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, S. (2022). Karl Popper. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/popper
   Google Scholar
• Trubody, B. (2019). The structure of scientific fraud: The relationship between paradigms and misconduct. In M. Addis, P. C. R. Lane, P. D. Sozou, & F. Gobet (Eds.), Scientific discovery in the social sciences (pp. 67–83). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tuana, N. (2010). Leading with ethics, aiming for policy: New opportunities for philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9793-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuana, N. (2013). Embedding philosophers in the practices of science: Bringing humanities to the sciences. Synthese, 190(11), 1955–1973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0171-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Office of Research Integrity. (2022). Definition of research misconduct. https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
   Google Scholar
• van Witteloostuijn, A. (2016). What happened to popperian falsification? Publishing neutral and negative findings. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(3), 481–508. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-03-2016-0084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, J., & Goodstein, D. (1996). Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science. American Scientist, 84(5), 479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo-Teh, N., & Tang, B. (2021). Research ethics courses as a vaccination against a toxic research environment or culture. Research Ethics, 17(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120926686
   Google Scholar
• Yeo-Teh, N. S., & Tang, B. L. (2022). Sustained rise in retractions in the life sciences literature during the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Publications, 10(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zagorin, P. (2001). Francis Bacon’s concept of objectivity and the idols of the mind. British Journal for the History of Science, 34(123 Pt 4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087401004411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar