ArticlePDF Available

Vigilantism in Science: The Need and the Risks

Authors:

Abstract

Science is in a constant state of flux. In recent years, science and scientists have been coming under attack, and scrutiny, by internal and external skeptics and critics, as well as a potentially anti-science movement. Despite this fairly negative portrayal, the expected outcome is that science – and its players – will become more robust, more critical and thus more reliable and accountable, i.e., that there will be a positive light at the end of a tumultuous period of challenge, although we are still far from reaching that point. Part of this process involves individuals or groups, known or anonymous, who are actively seeking out faults or errors, to demonstrate that science and scientists, and journals and publishers, are flawed and that something needs to be done to rectify this. Very rarely are such individuals referred to as vigilantes, but in essence, this is in fact what they are: individuals who have taken the reigns of quality control where it has failed, or where it has perceived to have failed. Vigilantism, which tends to conjure images of mob squads or self-appointed policing figures, involves taking on community style group awareness and implementation of their own rules, morals and values, as they see fit. Vigilantism, in the era of post-publication peer review, has reached science. This paper examines the positive and negative role that vigilantism plays, or can play, in science.
E-ISSN 2281-4612
ISSN 2281-3993
Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 3
November 2016
9
Vigilantism in Science: The Need and the Risks
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho post office, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken, 761-0799, Japan
Email: jaimetex@yahoo.com
Doi:10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p9
Abstract
Science is in a constant state of flux. In recent years, science and scientists have been coming under attack, and scrutiny, by
internal and external skeptics and critics, as well as a potentially anti-science movement. Despite this fairly negative portrayal,
the expected outcome is that science – and its players – will become more robust, more critical and thus more reliable and
accountable, i.e., that there will be a positive light at the end of a tumultuous period of challenge, although we are still far from
reaching that point. Part of this process involves individuals or groups, known or anonymous, who are actively seeking out
faults or errors, to demonstrate that science and scientists, and journals and publishers, are flawed and that something needs
to be done to rectify this. Very rarely are such individuals referred to as vigilantes, but in essence, this is in fact what they are:
individuals who have taken the reigns of quality control where it has failed, or where it has perceived to have failed. Vigilantism,
which tends to conjure images of mob squads or self-appointed policing figures, involves taking on community style group
awareness and implementation of their own rules, morals and values, as they see fit. Vigilantism, in the era of post-publication
peer review, has reached science. This paper examines the positive and negative role that vigilantism plays, or can play, in
science.
Keywords: anti-science; critical; flawed scientific discovery; legend; vigilante
1. How Might Vigilantism have been Born in Science?
There is a growing and politically powerful anti-science movement (Otto 2012). One could thus say that this group of
critics and skeptics may have led to the birth of the concept of vigilantism in science. Scientific denialism (Diethelm and
McKee 2009) has both religious and ideological fundamentalist roots, and stems from actual or perceived risks that
scientific discoveries may pose to society and humanity. In essence, the anti-science movement, which may originate
from the top (Rigden and Stuewer 2012), will counter the positive aspects of science with politically motivated criticisms
and with documented failures such as industrial mishaps, environmental scandals, biological conclusions that may
contradict religious beliefs, and failed medical trials where the patients have become the victims. It is not easy to clearly
distinguish between an anti-science posture, or simply a critical view, without knowing the trajectory of ideas by that
individual over time, and thus both terms will be used loosely and interchangeably within this paper. On the other hand,
there is a class of individuals, both scientists and not, who have seen that the channel for scientific discovery, namely
scientific journals, may be more flawed than was originally thought. Such flaws, which can range from imperfect reviews
to unqualified peer reviewers or biased editorial decisions (Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki 2015a), or the expansion of
academically suspect journals (Eriksson and Helgesson 2016), can ultimately lead to less than perfect science being
published, and undermine trust in science and in its reported discoveries. Such flaws also work into the hands of science
critics and the anti-science movement. As a result, a new class of science skeptics and science critics has emerged, even
from within the scientific ranks. Some of these are scientists who may have dropped out of science because they were
disenchanted with the prospects and the opportunities. Others may have been disillusioned with the power imbalance
vested in the status quo or technocrats over many matters related to science or science governance, giving junior
scientists little chance to enact reform, in particular in a field of study that would directly affect their careers and research.
Others yet may have witnessed, or been victims of, a narcissistic top-down structure in a laboratory or research institute
(Lemaitre 2016), unable to subject themselves to a psychologically demoralizing environment, opting instead to turn to
criticism to vent their frustration. Thus, the core emotions that have led to the rise of vigilantism in science tend to be
frustration, anger, disappointment, rebellion and disgust, among others. Increasing retractions that document more and
more errors in the literature, increasing cases of misconduct, as well as greater awareness through blogs and social
media such as Twitter, are fueling the anti-science philosophy and aiding its spread. In many cases, the concerns are
valid, but in others, the intentions may simply be to cause harm, tarnish images, and spread innuendo. Thus, science
E-ISSN 2281-4612
ISSN 2281-3993
Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 3
November 2016
10
critics, the anti-science movement and vigilantism are essential but also pose fundamental risks to science’s integrity and
survival, the greatest being their influence on policy making. In the current anti-science movement, such individuals are
referred to as science watchdogs, a topic will be briefly explored in the next letter. Otto (2012) accurately states that
“Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right – the classic definition of
authoritarianism.” And it is precisely for this reason why greater attention is required by scientists to the anti-science
movement, which can range from racists, sexists, creationists, economic conservatives and lobbyists (Rationalwiki,
2016), so as to be able to distinguish valid academic vigilantism that spurs accountability from vigilantism that aims purely
to destroy science and scientists’ reputations.
2. How did Vigilantism Enter the Scientific Conversation?
Vigilantism only crept into the scientific debate as a formal term in 2015 when Prof. Michael Blatt, Regius Professor of
Botany at the University of Glasgow, and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Plant Physiology, called out the destructive nature
of anonymous commenting at PubPeer (www.pubpeer.com), a site that allows for post-publication peer review (PPPR) of
the published literature, indicating that “the overwhelming majority of posts on PubPeer are negative and occasionally
malicious” and describing the platform as “The self-assumed role of PubPeer is about policing, not discussion.” The
introduction of the vigilante mentality of the PPPR movement at PubPeer was further solidified by his comment
“Legitimate authority demands consensual recognition and identity, both currently lacking for PubPeer.” The label of a
vigilante site was cemented by Blatt with this comment: “Indeed, if there is a threat to the scientific process, I would argue
that, unchecked, the most serious is the brand of vigilante science currently facilitated by PubPeer.” The underlying threat
emerged, as Blatt saw it, from unregulated comments by anonymous commentators, an issue that has both positive and
negative aspects in PPPR (Teixeira da Silva and Blatt, 2016). However, the fact that a criticism of the need to be vigilant
of the scientific literature and the publishing process became interlaced with criticisms of PubPeer as a PPPR platform,
criticisms of the founders, Brandon Stell, Richard Smith, and George Smith, and of Stell’s colleagues, Boris Barbour and
Gabor Brasnjo (Blatt, 2016), as well as criticisms of anonymity, has led to an unclear understanding of what vigilantism in
science is, or should be. In the next section, I attempt to decode what vigilantism is in the context of science publishing.
3. What is Scientific Vigilantism?
To build my argument and my definition, I rely on two web sources to build my basal definition, despite their fluctuating
and potentially unreliable content, Wikipedia (2016) and thefreedictionary.com (2016). Using arguments from those
sources, I hope to establish and clarify what science vigilantism is since no literature appears to have been published on
this topic yet, even less so within the context of science, other than an allusion to the topic by Blatt.
Thefreedictionary.com (2016) defines vigilantism as “Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice
according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who
organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security;
action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher
law than that enacted by society's designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence
of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.” To give it a scientific PPPR setting, I modify this
definition as follows to deemphasize the legal aspect and to incorporate a scientific prism: “Taking scientific quality control
(QC) into one's own hands and attempting to effect QC according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action
taken by a voluntary group of persons, scientists or not, who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a
common interest, namely science; action taken by an individual or group to protest the existing scientific publishing
platform; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher scientific standard than that enacted by society's
designated scientific and/or publishing institutions; private enforcement of publishing norms in the absence of an
established, reliable, and effective enforcement body for publishing norms.” Of note, scientific vigilantism will involve
scientific activism (i.e., the protest against something that is wrong in science) and scientific whistle-blowing (i.e., the
public revelation of facts that are otherwise confidential but that could potentially damage science, or reputations, or bring
about clarity), but is not necessarily equated with these concepts. Wikipedia defines a vigilante as “a civilian or
organization acting in a law enforcement capacity (or in the pursuit of self-perceived justice) without legal authority.” Thus
both the Wikipedia (2016) and the Thefreedictionary.com (2016) definitions refer to the law and how vigilantism is a
movement that counters the law by individuals or groups without formal authority.
I thus propose a broad definition of scientific vigilantism, as follows: the statements or actions taken by scientifically
E-ISSN 2281-4612
ISSN 2281-3993
Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 3
November 2016
11
qualified or unqualified persons, anonymous or not, individuals or groups, with or without conflicts of interest and biases,
with the purpose of exposing errors, conflicts or issues in science and science publishing that were created or allowed by
established and recognized scientific authorities, primarily editors, journals and publishers, but not exclusively this status
quo, with the ultimate objective of seeking a better and corrected scientific literature, greater transparency and
accountability. Scientific vigilantism seeks justice for those who were negatively affected by flaws in scientific QC, and fair
repercussions for those who allowed such flaws to come into existence, and persist. At base, scientific vigilantism does
not seek to use illegal or violent / armed means to achieve its end, but may rely on scientific activism and whistle-blowing
to achieve its final objectives. Such actions will involve the direct criticism of scientists, editors, journals and publishers,
through blogs, Tweets, other social media, including sites such as PubPeer or PubMed Commons
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/), or published papers.
At base, an increase in the militarization of science and the subsequent criminalization of scientists (Teixeira da
Silva 2016a) is adding a new layer of complexity to science that is stimulating extreme actions, viewpoints and measures
to deal with conflicts and problems, including the widening of vigilantism.
4. The Pro’s and Con’s of Scientific Vigilantism
The failure of peer review has often been blamed on the lack of reproducibility, but the ultimate fault for the lack of
reproducibility is itself in the weaknesses and flaws of traditional peer review, where insufficient scrutiny by editors and
peers has led to the publication of a potentially large tranche of flawed scientific papers harboring, or not, misconduct, but
most certainly many errors. When the basic mechanism that is meant to safe-guard the literature’s quality and integrity,
i.e., peer review, has failed, reproducibility takes a back seat (Teixeira da Silva 2016b). In such a case, holding authors,
editors, and publishers accountable for what they have published becomes the responsibility of the scientific community
and the public, even after authors have deceased (Teixeira da Silva 2016c; Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki 2015b).
This step, PPPR, in which errors are accidentally discovered or are intentionally searched for, involves the effort of
vigilant readers to ensure that the academic record is corrected after alerting the authors and appropriate editors and
publishers. In cases where authors, editors and publishers fail to respond, public shaming may be required to alert the
public to this lack of responsibility and to force change, requiring the actions of vigilantes. At base, vigilantism in the
context of science publishing serves a positive “pressure” of ensuring accountability and correction of the literature.
Conversely, vigilantism may also have negative repercussions, including a negative stigma and destroyed
reputations as a result of shaming (Armfield et al. 2016). In journals where a rigorous peer review takes place, the
process can often be stressful and exhausting, having to respond to the critiques of known and unknown peers. So,
traditionally, authors are not accustomed to being questioned about their papers after these have been published even
though publishing is meant to be an open-ended conversation. Consequently, queries that arise, anonymously or not,
after a paper is published, can be a surprise – or shock – to many – if not most – authors, and can constitute a level of
stress. Vigilantism and vigilantes may be oblivious, or insensitive, to this stress. To date, being held accountable for what
one has published has rarely been challenged save for blatant cases of misconduct, so the PPPR movement and the
action of vigilantes has introduced a new layer of stress for scientists. Although scientists need not feel the need to be
looking over their shoulders if they know that they have not dabbled in misconduct, the notion that one’s work can be
challenged, even after death, and even for minor errors, is an unsettling feeling since the motives of those challenging the
literature are usually unknown, primarily because biases exist in editorial and publisher ranks, and since a fair defense is
not always possible. Although vigilantism may be pushing scientists towards more careful record taking, analysis and
interpretation of results and publication of papers, it is also pushing scientists to feel more fearful and threatened.
Vigilantism is thus introducing a layer of aggression, insecurity and instability into science. Blatt (2015) provides a few
more arguments about how uncontrolled and unmoderated commenting on sites like PubPeer can be damaging, simply
by association with the site, or by the tone associated with comments that have been poorly moderated. This vigilantism
mentality of PubPeer is reinforced by Buranyi (2016), who describes PubPeer as serving as “a sort of 4chan for science,
allowing anyone to post anonymous comments on scientific studies. Originally intended as a forum for the discussion of
methods and results, PubPeer has perhaps become best known as a clearinghouse for accusations of scientific error,
fraud, and misconduct—forcing journals to issue corrections and retractions, damaging careers, and eventually
embroiling the site in a court case in which it’s advised by Edward Snowden’s legal team at the American Civil Liberties
Union.” However, in recognition of the its conflicting role, Buranyi further states of PubPeer “In the view of its critics,
PubPeer enables an unchecked stream of accusations with no accountability. But to its supporters, PubPeer is maybe
the only consistently effective way to expose fraud and error in the current scientific system.” Given these new pressures
E-ISSN 2281-4612
ISSN 2281-3993
Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 3
November 2016
12
on the scientific authorship, authors’ rights need to be urgently reassessed (Al-Khatib and Teixeira da Silva 2016) in the
context of PPPR and in the face of vigilantism’s risks and intended or unintended consequences.
5. Disclaimer and Conflicts of Interest
The author is both a vigilant scientist and a science vigilante which can automatically create a potential conflict of interest
with any scientist whose work he has scrutinized, or with any editor or publisher he has criticized.
References
Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016) What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics (in press) DOI:
10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8
Armfield, S.W.J., Armfield, D.M., Franklin, L.O. (2016) The shaming: creating a curriculum that promotes socially responsible online
engagement. In: Papa, R., Eadens, D.M., Eadens, D.W. (eds.) Social Justice Instruction, Springer International Publishing,
Switzerland, pp. 271–280. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12349-3_24
Blatt, M.R. (2015) Vigilante science. Plant Physiology 169(2), 907–909. Doi: 10.1104/pp.15.01443
Blatt, M.R. (2016) When is science ‘ultimately unreliable’? Plant Physiology 170(3), 1171–1173. Doi: 10.1104/pp.16.00160
Buranyi, S. (2016) Anonymous internet vigilantes are taking peer review into their own hands.
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/anonymous-internet-vigilantes-are-taking-peer-review-into-their-own-hands-pubpeer
(last accessed: 18 October, 2016)
Diethelm, P., McKee, M. (2009) Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? The European Journal of Public Health 19(1),
2–4. Doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
Eriksson, S., Helgesson, G. (2016) The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and
Philosophy (in press) DOI: 10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3
Lemaitre, B. (2016) An essay on science and narcissism: how do high-ego personalities drive research in life sciences? Self-published,
270 pp.
Otto, S.L. (2012) Antiscience beliefs jeopardize U.S. democracy. Scientific American online.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy/ (last accessed: 18 October, 2016)
Rationalwiki (2016) Antiscience. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antiscience (last accessed: 18 October, 2016)
Rigden, J.S., Stuewer, R.H. (2012) Anti-science: it comes from the top. Physics in Perspective 14(4), 389–391. Doi: 10.1007/s00016-
012-0103-z
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016a) The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary
Medicine 1(2): 214-215. DOI: 10.1515/jim-2016-0031
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016b) Reproducibility: does it really matter? The Winnower 3: e146575.50444. 3. pp. DOI:
10.15200/winn.146575.50444
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2016c) An error is an error… is an erratum. The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publishing
Research Quarterly (in press) DOI: 10.1007/s12109-016-9469-0
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Blatt, M.R. (2016) Does the anonymous voice have a place in scholarly publishing? Plant Physiology 170(4):
1899-1902. DOI: 10.1104/pp.15.01939
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J. (2015a) Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication
peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22(1): 22-40.
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J. (2015b) The authorship of deceased scientists and their posthumous responsibilities. Science
Editor 38(3/4): 98-100.
Thefreedictoniary.com (2016) Vigilantism. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism (last accessed: 18 October, 2016)
Wikipedia (2016) Vigilante. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante (last accessed: 18 October, 2016).
Article
Full-text available
While perspectives on open scholarship practices (OSPs) in Communication are noted in editorials and position papers, as a discipline we lack data-driven insights into how the larger community understands, feels about, engages in, and supports OSPs – insights that could inform current conversations about OSPs in Communication and document how the field shifts in response to ongoing discourses around OS in the current moment. A mixed-methodological survey of International Communication Association members (N = 330) suggested widespread familiarity with and support for some OSPs, but less engagement with them. In open-ended responses, respondents expressed several concerns, including reservations about unclear standards, presumed incompatibility with scholarly approaches, fears of a misuse of shared materials, and perceptions of a toxic culture surrounding open scholarship.
Article
Full-text available
While perspectives on open scholarship practices (OSPs) in Communication are noted in editorials and position papers, as a discipline we lack data-driven insights into how the larger community understands, feels about, engages in, and supports OSPs—insights that could inform current conversations about OSPs in Communication and document how the field shifts in response to ongoing discourses around OS in the current moment. A mixed-methodological survey of International Communication Association members (N = 330) suggested widespread familiarity with and support for some OSPs, but less engagement with them. In open-ended responses, respondents expressed several concerns, including reservations about unclear standards, presumed incompatibility with scholarly approaches, fears of a misuse of shared materials, and perceptions of a toxic culture surrounding open scholarship.
Article
Full-text available
When academics’ opinions, which are published in academic journals as letters to the editor or commentaries, are retracted based on sensitivities and objections that are raised for example on social media, there needs to be a reflection on what this might represent. On one hand, an opinion is precisely that, i.e., a subjective and biased view about an issue. Those views might even be radical, unpopular, or insensitive, but ultimately approved by editors for publication nonetheless. To maintain a truly sustainable scholarly discourse, the best academic way to counter such opinions is by allowing disagreeing voices to express themselves, also as letters to the editor or commentaries. Pressure-induced retractions of opinions not only stifle academic debate, they send the message that opinions need to be moderated and standardized to meet a publishing market that is being increasingly driven by legal parameters, political correctness, as well as business and commercial values rather than academic ones. In an environment of restrictive academic freedom, what emerges is an academia in which the way things are said, tone, and the sensitivity of those that might be affected are given greater weight than the message itself. By cherry-picking parts of the message that detractors or critics might disagree with, the original message may be drowned out by the noise of the objectors. The struggle of academics to liberally voice their opinions in the scholarly publishing realm, and to preserve those opinions, has never been more acute in this age of misinformation and radicalism fueled by polarized social and mass media. Is the politicization and/or commercialization of academia, alongside the retraction of opinions, stifling open and healthy academic debate, or expressing itself as the retraction of opinions, and does this represent a distinct form of “cancel culture” in academia and academic publishing?
Article
Full-text available
Freedom of speech in academia can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives the liberty to express opinions about issues that affect academics, but on the other, such freedoms can also be used against academics, even by other academics. Science finds itself in a state of reform, perhaps even crisis, in which a dense amount of transformational changes are taking place. As the academic playing field transforms itself, one method by which this is taking place is through the correction of the literature via an active process of critical analysis. In peer review, this is generally handled primarily by blinded (i.e., known to the editors) peers, while in a post-publication process, this may also be subjected to anonymous (i.e., unknown identity to authors and editors) critique. One of the more radical end-points of the post-publication process, which may reveal errors or faults, are retractions. Two organizations, Retraction Watch and PubPeer, are leading the way in terms of raising awareness and critique, but are using public shaming to expose science's faults and ills. These science watchdogs have now attracted considerable funding, including from powerful politically-driven US philanthropic foundations. Pressure is placed on scientists and academics by these organizations to be transparent, open and forthcoming about their errors. Scientists should cautiously assess queries made at or by Retraction Watch and PubPeer, directly or indirectly, and reserve their right to offer feedback. This is because what they state in response, either by email or on those blogs, may in fact be used against them on and by these public shaming platforms. The same applies to the blog of Leonid Schneider, another vocal science watchdog. Academia is at a crossroads between openness and transparency, but at what cost? Academics need to urgently appreciate the importance and risks that Retraction Watch, PubPeer and similar websites pose, before their legends become irreversibly transformed by interaction with such watchdogs. This paper also highlights comment suppression, manipulation or blocking by these science watchdogs, which may indicating a deliberate suppression of freedom of speech.
Article
Full-text available
Getting from an experimental result to a published paper is an energy- and time-consuming process that involves the concerted effort by authors, editors and publishers. Generally, a published paper represents a positive and celebratory outcome. Correcting errors in the literature is generally considered to be a positive academic achievement. In contrast, retracting erroneous or fraudulent work is still viewed in a negative light, even though it may simply be a necessary corrective measure because investments are lost, time is wasted and effort is flushed away. Thus, supported by a base build on sand-like academic metrics-based incentives, there is no real incentive or desire to correct the literature, even if it is necessary, because that would hurt the status quo. If the culture of shame can be disassociated from the act of correcting the literature – which is not made any better by the existence of increasingly aggressive and emboldened science watchdogs – then it is likely that corrections might be embraced as a more natural process in science publishing, especially when errors might be truly erroneous. Such a change in mentality will require a total overhaul of peer communities, a change that has taken an entire career to establish and develop, and thus will not take place overnight to reform. The increasingly zombified state of biomedical publishing can only correct itself when several core issues are recognized, openly debated, and resolved through interaction with all concerned parties.
Article
Full-text available
Most departments in any field of science that have a sound academic basis have discussion groups or journal clubs in which pertinent and relevant literature is frequently discussed, as a group. This paper shows how such discussions could help to fortify the post-publication peer review (PPPR) movement, and could thus fortify the value of traditional peer review, if their content and conclusions were made known to the wider academic community. Recently, there are some tools available for making PPPR viable, either as signed (PubMed Commons) or anonymous comments (PubPeer), or in a hybrid format (Publons). Thus, limited platforms are currently in place to accommodate and integrate PPPR as a supplement to traditional peer review, allowing for the open and public discussion of what is often publicly-funded science. This paper examines ways in which the opinions that emerge from journal clubs or discussion groups could help to fortify the integrity and reliability of science while increasing its accountability. A culture of reward for good and corrective behavior, rather than a culture that protects silence, would benefit science most.
Article
Full-text available
This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects of this development. The paper concludes that predatory publishing is a growing phenomenon that has the potential to greatly affect both bioethics and science at large. Publishing papers and books for profit, without any genuine concern for content, but with the pretence of applying authentic academic procedures of critical scrutiny, brings about a worrying erosion of trust in scientific publishing.
Article
Full-text available
Science is becoming more challenging, not only for scientists, but also for editors and publishers. Faced with limited funding within an expanding economic crisis, competition between scientists is increasing. The struggle for professional survival is leading some to revert to dishonest tactics to get ahead of the pack and cheating or fraud may be involved. Confronted with these new realities, which have become more debatable within the public arena, mainly as a result of an increase in blogs and social media, editors and publishers are reinforcing current publishing platforms in a bid to reduce the risks and to fortify their journals against future submission- and fraud-related problems. Ultimately, this places greater scrutiny — and stress — on the authorship, leading to an increase in militarization. At some point — which certain hints already indicate — the criminalization of science will begin as publishers fail to curtail fraud.
Article
Full-text available
This essay provides an unpalatable perspective on classifying the reluctance of authors, editors or publishers to correct their erroneous literature as being unethical. Authors who publish papers that carry errors and who take laurels for such publications, but who then fail to correct reported errors at a post-publication stage should be classified as unethical, and their act or irresponsibility as misconduct. Similarly, editors and publishers who fail to revise erroneous literature when claims are factually correct, independent of the volume of claims, are also in violation of their codes of conduct and professional responsibilities towards the scientific community and society. This essay provides a critical outlook on this issue which has begun to plague the post-publication movement in science, and which deserves urgent attention and focus.
Article
Full-text available
If science were perfect, there would be nothing left to explore or critique. So, irreproducible science serves two functions: to scientists, it represents an opportunity to improve or discover new aspects that were not apparent in the initial phase of discovery, while to science critics it represents the failures and flaws of scientists and the peer review and publishing systems.
Book
Full-text available
Scientists are often seen as meticulous and impartial individuals solely devoted to their study and the search for scientific truth. But a deeper analysis reveals that many of them are highly egocentric and sensitive to their public image and its associated privileges. Egocentrism, elitism, strategic media occupation and self-enhancement strategies are some of the first particularities that strike a newcomer to the academic world. An Essay on Science and Narcissism analyses the influence of narcissism, an important human personality dimension, on science. The central idea is that narcissism is an advantageous trait for succeeding in an academic environment. Scientists with a high ego are better at convincing others of the importance of their research and, as excellent networkers, they are well placed to exploit the different facets of the research system. In his essay, Bruno Lemaitre also discusses the psychological and sociobiological origins of narcissism and investigates the possible connection between narcissism on one hand, and dominance and short-term mating strategy on the other. The recent increase in narcissism in Western society and how this destabilises not only our society but also scientific practice is also discussed. This essay offers an alternative view of science by analysing the narcissistic personality: prevalent among leading scientists, but rarely placed in the spotlight.
Article
Full-text available
Key aspects of the fabric of science integrity are disintegrating and the noble cause for which true scientists have strived is being undermined by a wide array of disruptive factors. Even though traditional peer review (TPR) remains central to the integrity of the scientific literature, multiple weaknesses, including the general lack of a triple-blind peer review, indicate that TPR has in fact become corrupted to varying levels
Chapter
Language has often been used to devalue others and the implementation of social media environments has exacerbated the use and visibility of degrading language and imagery. Shaming in online spaces is often different than that in face-to-face environments. Those doing the shaming can hide behind anonymity or create images that are not associated with any one person, but that target a specific person or a group of people. Social media increases the reach and speed of these actions, making it nearly impossible to stop once it is started. Schools have an opportunity to be at the forefront of the movement to combat the mistreatment and abuse of others in technology-based environments by being aware, proactive, and purposeful in how they prepare teachers and students to engage with others. Teachers and students, working collaboratively, can create learning environments including face-to-face and online interactions that involve positive digital citizenship, quality learning, and increasingly advanced communication skills. In this chapter the authors will develop a background demonstrating how technology has been used to shame, share understandings of how this affects those who are being shamed, and construct strategies for reducing shaming practices.
Chapter
Language has often been used to devalue others and the implementation of social media environments has exacerbated the use and visibility of degrading language and imagery. Shaming in online spaces is often different than that in face-to-face environments. Those doing the shaming can hide behind anonymity or create images that are not associated with any one person, but that target a specific person or a group of people. Social media increases the reach and speed of these actions, making it nearly impossible to stop once it is started. Schools have an opportunity to be at the forefront of the movement to combat the mistreatment and abuse of others in technology-based environments by being aware, proactive, and purposeful in how they prepare teachers and students to engage with others. Teachers and students, working collaboratively, can create learning environments including face-to-face and online interactions that involve positive digital citizenship, quality learning, and increasingly advanced communication skills. In this chapter the authors will develop a background demonstrating how technology has been used to shame, share understandings of how this affects those who are being shamed, and construct strategies for reducing shaming practices.
Article
Authors are the central key component of scholarly publishing. Without authors, editors and publishers would not exist, since there would be no purpose for them. As more and more cases of fake or manipulated peer reviews come to light, publishing is becoming increasingly stringent. In traditional journals, this implies stricter rules, more verification steps, and even longer vetting processes during peer review. Thus, publishing carries with it great responsibility, and authors are held to the highest standards of accountability, and scrutiny. Despite this, what is rarely visible, at least in journals’ guidelines for authors, is authors’ rights. This letter explores this topic and seeks some basic groundwork for establishing authors’ rights.
Article
This past October, I published an editorial ([Blatt, 2015][1]) appraising the social media phenomenon of PubPeer. I raised several issues with the Web site that I maintain do not serve the scientific community and will only entrench many of the underlying attitudes and behaviors that PubPeer claims