Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
Let’s Streamline Consent for Reasearch
It is evident then that building trust and creating relationships is what volunteers want as the mainstay of good research practice, not extra forms or excessive levels of data protection by researchers.
Close Encounters of the Dental Kind
After an unplanned visit to an American dentist, Robert Dingwall reflects on the power and the role of the case study
Lessons from the LaCour Retraction
We need honest researchers who monitor their own behavior; we need to have scrutiny by other researchers in the field; and we need an engaged public. But what do we have, asks Judith Stark.
The Tragedy of the (Over-Surveyed) Commons
If Garrett Hardin were with us today, argues Rob Brooks, he would have saved a special place on the degraded commons to relegate those who inflict upon us all the burden of collecting meaningless data and unheeded opinion.
The Cultural Roots of the Latest Big Retraction
Social psychology has seen more than its fair share of all of ethical lapses, argues Jonathan Borwein, who notes it’s been described as a ‘train wreck.’ What are the deeper causes and implications of this most recent case of fraud in the social sciences?
Can Transparency Equal Trust in Science’s Crisis of Credibility?
Science is considered a source of truth and the importance of its role in shaping modern society cannot be overstated. But in […]
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, Consider Research Ethics
Imagine an ethics review system where the researcher’s proposal is read by an ‘ethics jury’ of four to six researchers drawn, as in legal juries, from the academic population at large, suggests Australia’s Gigi Foster.
Taking a Stick to Ethics Boards
Writing about her experiences in Australia, Gigi Foster wonders if ethics boards are more interested in ticking the necessary boxes and not upholding the standards that supposedly underlie the boards’ existence.
