Stings, Hoaxes and Irony Breach the Trust Inherent in Scientific Publishing
Trust has traditionally been a cornerstone of traditional science publishing. However, events over the past few years, an increase in the number of retractions and the fortification of the vigilant science movement, coupled with better tools to detect and report or publicize misconduct and/or errors in the literature, has revealed that this pillar of trust has in fact not always been present, or has been severely abused or compromised. Further disintegration in the integrity of academic publishing by no or almost non-existent peer review in so-called “predatory” open access publishers has given reason to increasingly distrust the accuracy of the published academic record. Finally, a topic that tends to invoke mixed reactions, but which we feel adds to the overall level of mistrust and erosion of ethical values in science publishing, is the use of stings, hoaxes and irony academic journals. We focus on six such cases, providing a rationale why such studies undermine trust and integrity and why such bogus publications are best left to blogs or non-academic forms of publishing science-related topics.
KeywordsFalse information Lack of integrity Loss of trust Misconduct Misleading
- 3.Bohannon J. I fooled millions into thinking chocolate helps weight loss. Here’s how. 2015. http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 4.Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for BiomedicalResearch Involving Human Subjects. Geneva, Switzerland: CIOMS. 2002. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 5.Davis S. Scientific journal publishes fake study on whether mommy boo boo kisses really work. 2015. http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/31/scientific-journal-publishes-fake-study-on-whether-mommy-boo-boo-kisses-really-work/. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 6.Djuiric DZ, Delilbasic B, Radisic S. Evaluation of transformative hermeneutic heuristics for processing random data. International Journal of Very Important Multidisciplinary Research, 18(6), 98–102 (retracted). 2013. http://www.scribd.com/doc/167706815.
- 8.Dyrud MA. Predatory online technical journals: a question of ethics. In: Proceedings of 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, paper ID #8413. 2014.http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/32/papers/8413/download. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 9.Ehrenberg R. Attempt to shame journalists with chocolate study is shameful. 2015. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/culture-beaker/attempt-shame-journalists-chocolate-study-shameful. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 10.Eisen M. I confess, I wrote the arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals. 2013. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439#sthash.RVPZ6ahU.dpuf. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 14.Fish S. Professor Sokal bad joke. The New York Times. 1996. http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/fish.html. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 17.International Committee of Medical Journal. Defining the role of authors and contributors. 2015. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 18.McKinnon M. Chocolate diet paper won’t be retracted, because it was never published. 2015 http://io9.gizmodo.com/chocolate-diet-paper-wont-be-retracted-becuase-it-was-170753153. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 20.Oltermann P. Human-animal studies academics dogged by German hoaxers. 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/human-animal-studies-academics-dogged-by-german-hoaxers. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 21.Oransky I. Should the chocolate-diet sting study be retracted? And why the coverage doesn’t surprise a news watchdog. 2015. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/28/should-the-chocolate-diet-sting-study-be-retracted-and-why-the-coverage-doesnt-surprise-a-news-watchdog/. Last accessed 22 July, 2015.
- 24.Sokal A. A physicist experiments with cultural studies. 1996. http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9605/sokal.html. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
- 26.Teixeira da Silva JA. Archives of Biological Sciences: from falling star to glimmer of hope. Self archived. 2015a. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282366831_Archives_of_Biological_Sciences_From_Falling_Star_to_Glimmer_of_Hope. Last accessed 22 July, 2016.
- 30.The Study of Maternal and Child Kissing (SMACK) Working Group. Maternal kisses are not effective in alleviating minor childhood injuries (boo-boos): a randomized, controlled and blinded study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2015;21(6):1244–6. doi:10.1111/jep.12508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Weinberg S. Sokal’s hoax. The New York Review of Books. 1996;43(13):11–5.Google Scholar