Abstract
In biology and medicine, a scientist’s legend is most commonly determined by their sphere of influence, either on surrounding peers, on clients in the case of medical practitioners, or on the wider scientific public in the case of research scientists. A scientific paper still constitutes the most effective portal through which ideas, knowledge and opinions can be shared among academics and scholars. Thus, legends in science are built upon a scientist’s published literature. Legend was always assumed to be safe in its final form, i.e., a published paper. Yet, a powerful movement of post-publication peer review has begun to identify that not all has been well with the vetting process that led to the publication of a tranche of the scientific literature, and that editorial oversight and weakness has prevailed in a number of cases, leading to retractions and a more critical re-assessment of the literature. One could say that the half-life of a scientific paper has only just begun once it is published. Within this context of science publishing that has given a sense of false security, legends may evolve from boom to bust within the space of weeks or even months. The legendary status of a scientist is therefore no longer safe if there are hidden or undiscovered errors, fraud or misconduct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. What rights do authors have? Sci Eng Eth. 2016;32(3):208–19. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.
Blatt MR. Vigilante science. Plant Physiol. 2015;169:907–9.
Butler D. Leading plant biologist found to have committed misconduct. Nature. 2015. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17958.
Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505:612–3. doi:10.1038/505612a.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). How to respond to whistle blowers when concerns are raised via social media. 2015. http://publicationethics.org/files/RespondingToWhistleblowers_ConcernsRaisedViaSocialMedia.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016.
COPE. Responding to anonymous whistle blowers. 2013. http://publicationethics.org/files/Whistleblowers_document_Final.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Cyranoski D. Papers on ‘stress-induced’ stem cells are retracted. Nature. 2014. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15501.
Keith R. Investigation ends in 6th retraction for Voinnet. 2015. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/05/investigation-ends-in-6th-retraction-for-voinnet/. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Nature Plants. Better than riches (editorial). Nat Plants. 2015;1:15123. doi:10.1038/NPLANTS.2015.123.
Oransky I. It’s official: Anil Potti faked cancer research data, say Feds. 2015. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/07/its-official-anil-potti-faked-data-say-feds/. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Palus S. Biologist banned by second publisher. 2015. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/24/biologist-banned-by-second-publisher/. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Palus S. Plant scientist Voinnet’s correction count grows to 22. 2016. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/18/plant-scientist-voinnets-correction-count-grows-to-22/. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Pulverer B. When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record. EMBO J. 2015. doi:10.15252/embj.201570080.
Schneider L. Olivier Voinnet loses EMBO gold medal, Sonia Melo investigated by EMBO. 2016. https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/olivier-voinnet-loses-embo-gold-medal-sonia-melo-investigated-by-embo/. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Teixeira da Silva JA. The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing. Front Plant Sci. 2013; 4:Article 485, 3 pp.
Teixeira da Silva JA. Snub publishing: theory. Asian Aust J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7(1):35–7.
Teixeira da Silva JA. Snub publishing: evidence from the Anthurium literature. Publ Res Q. 2014;30(1):166–78.
Teixeira da Silva JA. The “black swan” phenomenon in science publishing. J Educ Soc Res. 2015;5(3):11–2.
Teixeira da Silva JA. An error is an error… is an erratum. The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publ Res Q. 2016;32(3):220–6. doi:10.1007/s12109-016-9469-0.
Teixeira da Silva JA. Reproducibility: does it really matter? Winnower. 2016;3: e146575.50444. https://thewinnower.com/papers/4788-reproducibility-does-it-really-matter. doi:10.15200/winn.146575.50444.
Teixeira da Silva JA, Blatt MR. Does the anonymous voice have a place in scholarly publishing? Plant Physiol. 2016;170(4):1899–902. doi:10.1104/pp.15.01939.
Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. The role of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review versus traditional peer review. KOME. 2015;3(2):90–4.
Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. The authorship of deceased scientists and their posthumous responsibilities. Sci Editor. 2015;38(3/4):98–100.
Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Account Res Polic Qual Assur. 2015;22(1):22–40.
Wade N. University suspects fraud by a researcher who studied red wine. New York Times 11 Jan 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/science/fraud-charges-for-dipak-k-das-a-university-of-connecticut-researcher.html?_r=0. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Wikipedia. Vigilante. 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J. & Al-Khatib, A. Legends in Science: from Boom to Bust. Pub Res Q 32, 313–318 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9476-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9476-1