RT @WesElyMD: 3/fin How Many Scientists Fabricate & Falsify Research? 2% I meant to outright falsification of data and 33% admit to questi…
RT @WesElyMD: 3/fin How Many Scientists Fabricate & Falsify Research? 2% I meant to outright falsification of data and 33% admit to questi…
Quelle fraction des chercheurs fraudent ainsi? 2% au minimum. C'est la fraction en auto-déclaration. https://t.co/1XvSlS6ZPI]
RT @WesElyMD: 3/fin How Many Scientists Fabricate & Falsify Research? 2% I meant to outright falsification of data and 33% admit to questi…
RT @WesElyMD: 3/fin How Many Scientists Fabricate & Falsify Research? 2% I meant to outright falsification of data and 33% admit to questi…
RT @WesElyMD: 3/fin How Many Scientists Fabricate & Falsify Research? 2% I meant to outright falsification of data and 33% admit to questi…
3/fin How Many Scientists Fabricate & Falsify Research? 2% I meant to outright falsification of data and 33% admit to questionable research practices. This is such an important area of focus for us as a sceintific community. Stay true! https://t.co
@ERICSORENSEN “If you disagree with scientists about science, it’s not really a disagreement. You’re actually just incorrect.” 🥴 https://t.co/PeHFwt4CEd https://t.co/QBkkDlgesK
@chunkyshoota Before chatting absolute 💩 get your facts right, science has been corrupted by money for decades🤡 How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data https://t.co/jOMxEkjaFU https://t.co/
RT @Goalkickingguru: @DatSamThen @RoelofBoer @ZeynepinLE @DavidMi86282357 @ClimateHuman @LofayPeter Off course some scientists manipulate d…
@DatSamThen @RoelofBoer @ZeynepinLE @DavidMi86282357 @ClimateHuman @LofayPeter Off course some scientists manipulate data https://t.co/lIFz77pHzS
@exularoye @TheOnion @ClimateHuman Just because I love you: A not so old paper on Scientific data manipulation (cherry picking). On current climate science the big bucks are in supporting anthropogenic CO2. Challenge it, forget getting grants. https://t
@littleashtag @Shadowrunner714 @StangelandShawn @ClownWorld_ Scientist falsify info all the time. They just make crap up leaning towards whoever pays them. https://t.co/j67InZxLM4
@69200mu @KevinBardosh @KrugAlli @ID_ethics @TrudoLemmens @s_keshavjee @VPrasadMDMPH @MartyMakary @sdbaral @TracyBethHoeg “Science” has been victimized by human distortion long before the pandemic. https://t.co/YI29kMITOL
多くの分野の研究で再現性に問題が出ているようです。再現性は50%以下という結果も多く報告されています。調べていますが、認知を狂わせることで科学的方法論に基づいた研究成果を変えられそうな気がします。 https://t.co/uosei8mM4x https://t.co/rH3Ba0jXxl https://t.co/4jmWshs8JV
@neilsutcliffe75 how many scientists falsify data and research? https://t.co/zi19uMgpi1
@npc96589 @generalflip1 -THANK YOU! *MUCH* better representation. But not about false data. Here's a better one 2% admit to falsifying data: - So how can you go to 2% (or lets even use the 'colleague' number of 14%) to saying ANYTHING about say, NovaVax
@omneco @VPrasadMDMPH Para más inri acerca de los estudios científicos tenemos éste revisado por pares y publicado sobre cuestionamientos al proceder de los científicos y los informes. https://t.co/8nT2MrZevq
https://t.co/d4ZlZv7lrD Estudio revisado por pares del 2009 sobre fraudulentas investigaciones científicas arroja q en las encuestas q preguntaban sobre el comportamiento de los científicos, 14,12 % por falsificación y hasta 72 % por otra prácticas de inve
@crankypantskat "A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once" 2%, not 90%. https://t.co/hHyhKaElqm
"RUHSPECK THA SCIENCE!!!!" https://t.co/1d6E4UbuAe
@peteramstutz @BriannaWu Who is in charge of funding this research or checking the findings at NIH I read Retraction Watch...... The more I read the less sure I am about following the science. But this is the tip of the iceberg. https://t.co/gDQkxAHmt7
2% of scientists admitted to falsifying, fabricating, or modifying data at least once https://t.co/s45eFKtV40
@RettopNoj That's if the statistics are true. https://t.co/drUG9rN4XY https://t.co/zi19uMgpi1 How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data https://t.co/RPy2JA0OLm https://t.co/ILkaxzOTKZ https://
Fun fact: did you know that a study from 2009 aimed to assess and study data fabrication among researchers found in their survey that 1.97% (CI: 0.86–4.45) of researchers fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once? https://t.co/fWj2ff
@FishInLake @xglygod @Blackflash22 @elonmusk @EvaFoxU https://t.co/d0axUj1zVZ Scientific journals are significant sources of bias. Always have been. Bias is encouraged through methods used to award grants, the lure of patents and many other money factors
@lemm_it @Paul86ck @docent_ws @PiotrWitczak_ @Marek39556099 Nie, kryzys replikacji nie ma związku z fałszowaniem badań - a przeglądy tematu potwierdzają to co mówię. https://t.co/9vLlyHh7cb
RT @MicrobiomDigest: GG: Survey was done late 2020, across 22 Dutch universities and medical centers. Privacy protection was key, to promot…
RT @MicrobiomDigest: GG: Survey was done late 2020, across 22 Dutch universities and medical centers. Privacy protection was key, to promot…
GG: Survey was done late 2020, across 22 Dutch universities and medical centers. Privacy protection was key, to promote honest answers to these sensitive questions. 6813 responses, one of the largest studies about QRPs and misconduct. See e.g. https://t.
@WybrenvanHaga Is de kwaliteit (#waarheidsspreken) van de studies dan niet nergens problematischer dan in de #medische wetenschap, zoals o.m. de 3 hieronder genoemde studies uitwezen? #replicatiecrisis #Fanelli #Ionnidis https://t.co/E96l8wPerL https://t.
@MarionKoopmans @_knaw @RHDijkgraaf @vanranstmarc @erasmusuni Is de kwaliteit (#waarheidsspreken) van de studies dan niet nergens problematischer dan in de #medische wetenschap, zoals o.m. de 3 hieronder genoemde studies uitwezen? #replicatiecrisis #Fanell
@Sw3Chad @mumf14 @pilgrim2glory @PittshillP @Patrici84887372 @AlisonP57026328 Jesus, Chud. I irked you to the point you're going through my history to chime in? I won't be held responsible for giving your life meaning so you'll have to find another outle
RT @Ashmedaidemon: 1) https://t.co/M79hBXOVvE Title: How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analy…
1) https://t.co/M79hBXOVvE Title: How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data Answer: A Lot 2% "of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once"
I do #TrustTheScience, but faith is something else entirely. https://t.co/xg9KZlQSwa
Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten in Bezug auf Erfindung und Manipulation von Forschungsdaten scheint keine so kleine Nische zu sein, sondern eher im einstelligen %-Bereich: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim
For more on this, check out: https://t.co/Wpemt0g4S0
RT @Too_Good2BTrue: @MJnanostretch There's a lot that needs to be fixed, even with peer review papers. Personal & external conflicts of in…
@MJnanostretch There's a lot that needs to be fixed, even with peer review papers. Personal & external conflicts of interest have been degrading the reliability of scientific studies for years. https://t.co/5DI3Stb1eA https://t.co/fhwuP9rapy
@DrJamesOlsson It is well documented -- 2 studies below⬇️. https://t.co/5DI3Stb1eA https://t.co/CLDhuTnADo
@DrLutzBoehm The pandora's box is pretty deep, unfortunately, e.g.: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim There's a lot of work to restore research integrity.
@aspecurian @PeterJoseph73 @ksorbs You have no clue what you're talking about. There you go: https://t.co/liPEFDciYr 2% fabricated / modified data 33% admitted to questionable research practices
@NikkiVicious @covidhobo @SpeakTr51844063 @PN_1984 @resisterlib Science is for sale. https://t.co/t2WCvfy2p7
@72daystar @EricRWeinstein Because no scientist would ever have an agenda 🙄 https://t.co/PcqFhT1MLb
@collypso @MayoIsSpicyy Capitalism just makes things worse https://t.co/peMvIHZp75 https://t.co/GuQhlsSYuO
RT @mir_albert: @SiempreSanidad ¿Quién audita ahora a compañías farmacéuticas que mueven más capital que países enteros y a sus estudios? M…
@cid_mio En la vida real, las farmacéuticas de las vacunas covid si no están blindadas antes posibles demandas no te quieren vacunar. En la vida real, muchos estudios científicos son manipulados. https://t.co/p8FVWwC0Nh En la vida real la FDA sacará en
RT @mir_albert: @SiempreSanidad ¿Quién audita ahora a compañías farmacéuticas que mueven más capital que países enteros y a sus estudios? M…
RT @mir_albert: @SiempreSanidad ¿Quién audita ahora a compañías farmacéuticas que mueven más capital que países enteros y a sus estudios? M…
RT @mir_albert: @SiempreSanidad ¿Quién audita ahora a compañías farmacéuticas que mueven más capital que países enteros y a sus estudios? M…
@SiempreSanidad ¿Quién audita ahora a compañías farmacéuticas que mueven más capital que países enteros y a sus estudios? Manipular resultados es algo muy grave que se hace más frecuentemente de lo que pensamos. https://t.co/lBfOHTiKnu
@SiempreSanidad ¿Quién audita ahora a compañías farmacéuticas y que mueven más dinero que países enteros y a sus estudios? Manipular resultados es algo muy grave que se hace más frecuentemente de lo que pensamos. https://t.co/lBfOHTiKnu
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? in a study of 61 scientifically peer reviewed papers it was found 33 studies were excluded because they did not have any relevant or original data. 1/3 Trust the Science! https://t.co/rVhbHZGAFv
RT @rourecentenari: Totalmente de acuerdo. El mamoneo es impresionante. Y para publicar a cual mejor postor. El 60% de las revistas científ…
RT @mir_albert: @rourecentenari Evidencia hay de sobra. Pero necesitan que se publique en una revista. Pocos saben el mamoneo que hay en mu…
RT @rourecentenari: Totalmente de acuerdo. El mamoneo es impresionante. Y para publicar a cual mejor postor. El 60% de las revistas científ…
RT @mir_albert: @rourecentenari Evidencia hay de sobra. Pero necesitan que se publique en una revista. Pocos saben el mamoneo que hay en mu…
Totalmente de acuerdo. El mamoneo es impresionante. Y para publicar a cual mejor postor. El 60% de las revistas científicas están en manos sucias y con mamoneos hasta el cuello. Los lab son una mafia. Y lo sabemos muchos. Sobretodo los que saltan a la yug
@rourecentenari Evidencia hay de sobra. Pero necesitan que se publique en una revista. Pocos saben el mamoneo que hay en muchos estudios y las técnicas que tienen las farmacéuticas para que las cosas cuadren. Hay que estar en el sector para saberlo. https:
@tonedh32 @caroreadstarot Logistically 10% of science is fraud btw if you didn't know. https://t.co/ukoDMPkqLK
@MicrowaveSalt @RWMaloneMD You got that right https://t.co/PVeHWroFvu https://t.co/g9fEmFWqvE
RT @GidMK: If we look at anonymous surveys of researchers, the rate of serious misconduct - plagiarism, outright fakery etc - is estimated…
RT @GidMK: If we look at anonymous surveys of researchers, the rate of serious misconduct - plagiarism, outright fakery etc - is estimated…
RT @GidMK: If we look at anonymous surveys of researchers, the rate of serious misconduct - plagiarism, outright fakery etc - is estimated…
If we look at anonymous surveys of researchers, the rate of serious misconduct - plagiarism, outright fakery etc - is estimated to be somewhere between 3-14% https://t.co/hOuRo440Eh https://t.co/b6XTMiTqRd
RT @PhilJaeker: @jamesheathers @GermanRepro @ukrepro @DBetterAcademia @UofGCultureLab @dittrich_lars Thanks for adding vocabulary to my dic…
RT @PhilJaeker: @jamesheathers @GermanRepro @ukrepro @DBetterAcademia @UofGCultureLab @dittrich_lars Thanks for adding vocabulary to my dic…
@jamesheathers @GermanRepro @ukrepro @DBetterAcademia @UofGCultureLab @dittrich_lars Thanks for adding vocabulary to my dictionary: omerta ;-). Will be difficult to find out. But research like this: https://t.co/5W9sFCH59U let's me think that at least e
@TisdaleWA I'm not sure if you're aware of publications such as this: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim But misconduct & "questionable research practices" might be more common than we think:
@boulware_dr @Marius13036820 I believe the response when asked in surveys is that around 1-3% of all researchers admit to committing some kind of data fakery, although when you ask people about colleagues' behaviour they reply that the risk is far higher h
@PopuliAtheist @DerekJameson18 @TakeThatDarwin @GamingCapricorn @PeaceOfMind_123 @Thedukeistheman @Atheism_is_Dead Yeah we’ll see about that. B. just spreading somebody’s opinion like it’s a fact. Doesn’t make it fact. Doesn’t change the fact. it’s just a
@FSWriter @SilvaAtTwitta Ganze Argumentationsstränge über "bad science" gibt's selten in den Wissenschaften. Das wär eher im journalistischen Bereich (z.B. about the profitable business of scientific publishing). Aber wenn es sie mal gibt, greifen sie auf
It is probably very scary to know exactly how widespread of a problem this is. People trying to save jobs will do almost anything.
RT @weissiam: In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other q…
In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. (2/2) https://t.co/9EykBRPZtT
RT @PerfectUrPurpos: “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” https://t.co…
👇🏿
RT @PerfectUrPurpos: “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” https://t.co…
RT @PerfectUrPurpos: “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” https://t.co…