A space to explore, share and shape the issues facing social and behavioral scientists
Robin Haunschild and Lutz Bornmann discuss their recent findings on how retracted papers were talked about on the social media platform Twitter and how this can be mapped onto the eventual retraction notices of these articles.
The Journal of Health Psychology has led the charge into reviewing the published work of the late Hans Eysenck, and the editor of that journal, David F. Marks, and historian of psychology Roderick D. Buchanan, note the detritus of a Kings College London inquiry — 61 retractions for Eysenck’s work so far — and argue the case spotlights the need for a new body to ensure future research integrity.
Peer review is a powerful tool for sussing out the truth, but it’s not all-powerful. We also need to develop ways to reward scientists who do make their publications, data and methodology open for even greater scrutiny.
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.
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?
