decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science | 241 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Scientific fraud is rife: it's time to stand up for good science
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
In practice, scientific fraud is a bad, but not terribly
significant issue. The vast majority of papers aren't
fraudulent. Albeit mechanisms for reporting scientific
fraud are not well-established. The current mechanism
appears to be...report suspected fraud to your dean and wait
for the dean to retaliate against you. (Based on NIH
whistle-blower study)

Publication of false-positive results based on selection
bias is a horrible issue that results for, eg, the vast
majority of cancer drugs can not be reproduced. That's a
disaster.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020376480457705
9841672541590.html

If one hundred researchers test whether or not listening to
Mozart causes cancer...how many publications with P<0.05 are
expected? 5. How many negative results are published? 0.
How many researchers will do multiple tests until they get
P<0.5? 30.

The end result is that the majority of the scientific
literature in many fields is simply wrong in its
conclusions. Nature and Science are particularly known for
this issue.

While the punitive approach is not popular, I personally
favor long-term verification of the validity of the
conclusions on an academic's publications.

Conclusions that are well-supported by later literature
would boost one's score.

Conclusions that are later shown to be incorrect would
significantly adversely affect one's score.

--Erwin

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )