Tag: Chris Chambers

I have often lamented the fact there is very little development in Sciences, mainly after Newton.

 

One of the reasons is the commercialization of Science .Please read my blog on this.

 

The faking of Scientific Data has grown to such an extent that  a website has been on to check if the Data is original.

 

Next time you find a new Research finds’ please don’t follow that if it relates to Health , Medicine.

 

http://www.researchgate.net/

 

http://ramanisblog.in/2012/08/22/now-you-can-view-the-mistakes-of-scientists/

Now it reported that  Psychology was rocked recently by stories of academics making up data, sometimes overshadowing whole careers. And it isn’t the only discipline with problems – the current record for fraudulent papers is held by anaesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, with 172 faked articles..

…….

‘This is happening because the entire way that we go about funding, researching and publishing science is flawed. As Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner point out, the reasons are numerous and interconnecting:

• Pressure to publish in “high impact” journals, at all research career levels;
• Universities treat successful grant applications as outputs, upon whichcontinued careers depend;
• Statistical analyses are hard, and sometimes researchers get it wrong;
• Journals favour positive results over null findings, even though null findings from a well conducted study are just as informative;
• The way journal articles are assessed is inconsistent and secretive, and allows statistical errors to creep through.’

As I have posted earlier this is due to the Educational system which does not encourage original thought and insists on developing entrenched theories.

http://www.reddit.com/tb/12i6sr

 

Related:

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109.abstract