When responding to your classmates, provide your perspective on scientific integrity and offer other suggestions for how the identified threat could be remedied.
Classmate1-GF
Scientific integrity is extremely important in the field of psychology. Misconduct lowers ethical and integral standards, undermines research, and decreases public confidence and trust. Scientific misconduct occurs when researchers intentionally and deliberately distort information, findings, or results. Types of misconduct include data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, and fraud (Stricker & Günther, 2019) but does not include honest mistakes and errors. It was surprising to read that some types of fraud rarely occur compared to others. Reisig, Holtfreter, & Berzofsky (2020) reported that the least common type of fraud was data fabrication, which is when data is created from a study that was not conducted, and that the most prevalent type of fraud was authorship fraud, or more specifically gift authorship which is when an author’s name is added to a paper without them actually contributing anything to the research.
Scientific misconduct, such as bias and fraud, are definitely the biggest threat to scientific integrity in psychology and can have various negative consequences. Misconduct, when not identified, provides misinformation to the public as well as the scientific community. However, misconduct that is identified results in the potential loss of investments and research capacity, the suspension of scientific progress, and it can also damage the careers of those who were unknowingly involved (Yeo-The & Tang, 2022).
There are a number of ways scientific misconduct can be remedied, or at the very least reduced. For the detection of scientific misconduct, Stricker and Günther (2019) suggest advancement of open data and materials to improve reporting systems. However, they also note that detection may not prevent misconduct entirely, so it is equally important that organizations clearly communicate what is ethically acceptable and unacceptable in research. To reduce publication bias in research, journals can accept research with non-significant results as well as research that replicates previous studies. According to Yeo-The and Tang (2022), there is currently a demand and bias for researchers with productive and good track records which makes it difficult for researchers to publish negative or non-significant research results. Research with non-significant results is less likely to be published which in turn hinders the researcher’s employment opportunities, career advancement, and even funding. The researchers also recommend efforts to enhance knowledge of research ethics and integrity through clear research guidelines, as well as protocols to handle misconduct and adequate consequences for committing misconduct (Yeo-The & Tang, 2022).
References
Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Berzofsky, M. E. (2020). Assessing the perceived prevalence of research fraud among faculty at research-intensive universities in the USA.
Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 27(7), 457–475.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1080/08989621.2020.1772060
Stricker, J., & Günther, A. (2019). Scientific misconduct in psychology: A systematic review of prevalence estimates and new empirical data.
Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 227(1), 53–63. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1027/2151-2604/a000356
Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2022). Perceived publication pressure and research misconduct: Should we be too bothered with a causal relationship?
Research Ethics, 18(4), 329-338. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1177/17470161221125097
Classmate 2-HC
There were a couple of things that surprised me in these readings. First, the fact that it is known in the scientific community how much fraud happens. Fraud including plagiarism, data fabrication, and wrongful authorship, and essentially there no multidimensional scale that can be used for one study. One study can only be explained to use fraud in one area. (Yeo-The & Tang, 2022) So, it must be determined which one has the most consequences? Or the more important reason as to recant the published work. It didn’t surprise me in the readings how mush fraud occurs, but the reasonings behind it surprised me. The idea that people get cash to “finish first”, even if the information is not 100% fact and proven with real evidence. (Reisig, Holtfreter, & Berzofsky, 2020) History has marked itself numerous times in not giving proper accreditation where it was due to authors or individuals involved in studies, or ones that had the original hypotheses. The morals that people can just throw out of the window to get ahead, I guess never having to be in that position before I don’t understand it. Of course, I understand the situation of compromise, especially when it comes to losing a job and income, but the cost of violating morals in a moment, the bigger picture should be examined before making decisions. I feel as though there should be more structure when it comes to publishing works, and I know that it is a time consuming and crunching area in life, where humanity needs answers. But wouldn’t we rather people have a longer deadline versus committing fraud to give us answers or benefiting themselves? Ans why does the sacrifice having to be their job? These implications, I feel, gives fraud an increased chance to happen. They system, itself should be viewed more versus the ones that are publishing the works.
References:
Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Berzofsky, M. E. (2020). Assessing the perceived prevalence of research fraud among faculty at research-intensive universities in the USA.
Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance,
27(7), 457–475.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1080/08989621.2020.1772060
Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2022). Perceived publication pressure and research misconduct: should we be too bothered with a causal relationship?
Research Ethics,
18(4), 329-338.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1177/17470161221125097
