Social Science Space

The double-blind review process, adopted by many publishers and funding agencies, plays a vital role in maintaining fairness and unbiasedness by concealing the identities of authors and reviewers. However, in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) and big data, a pressing question arises: can an author’s identity be deduced even from an anonymized paper (in cases where the authors do not advertise their submitted article on social media)?

The claim that academics hype their research is not news. The use of subjective or emotive words that glamorize, publicize, embellish or exaggerate results and promote the merits of studies has been noted for some time and has drawn criticism from researchers themselves. Some argue hyping practices have reached a level where objectivity has been replaced by sensationalism and manufactured excitement. By exaggerating the importance of findings, writers are seen to undermine the impartiality of science, fuel skepticism and alienate readers.

Jasper Knight identifies five key issues that underlie working with human subjects in research and which transcend institutional or disciplinary differences.

Stefan de Jong, Michael J. Bernstein and Ingeborg Meijer describe their work developing a tool that helps researchers and research funders to incorporate responsible research and innovation values into their work.

Robert Dingwall asks if claims about the effectiveness of face masks in stopping COVID consistent with current standards of research integrity.

“We feel diminished,” says Alessandra Hora dos Santos. “It’s like we were lab rats. They come in nicely, collect information, collect exams on the child, and in the end we don’t know of any results. It’s like we are being used without even knowing why that is being done.”

A new blue-ribbon council convened by the United States’ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine aims to tackle questions about nettlesome issues like conflict of interest, measuring impact and handling retractions.

The authors of a new book on community-led research ask how to move research ‘done to’ and ‘on people’ towards ‘for and with people.’ It features both community and academic voices and reflects on research that foregrounds non-academic priorities.

Correcting mistakes in light of new data and updating findings to reflect this is often considered to be a key characteristic of scientific research. Commenting on the ‘Loss-of-Confidence Project’, a study into self-correction amongst psychologists, Julia M. Rohrer, suggests that in practice self-correction of published research is, infrequent, difficult to achieve and perceived to come with reputational costs. However, by reframing and changing the static nature of academic publications, it may be possible to develop a research culture more conducive to self-correction.

Research has long highlighted the importance of research associates and assistants in the production of knowledge, and the importance of locally embedded expertise – though often without giving them a voice. An online project seeks to address that.

While journalism might at times be seen as a sort of ‘ethnography lite,’ when it comes to checking out the field reporter’s facts it’s much more of a heavy hitter.

New revelations about the influential ‘Being Sane in Insane Places’ experiment by David Rosenhan provide a valuable lesson for other social scientists. You never know what you will find once you begin fact-checking sources against available documentation.