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…
“How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” https://t.co/FwTta7d69j “8% of researchers in Dutch survey have falsified or fabricated data” https://t.co/ZgkPyoFCnO
@TrumpLost2x @Baligubadle1 I'm flatter, but I'm heterosexual, so no thank you. That's my point, they lose all their funding dipsh*t, and to say it doesn't happen is being naive. https://t.co/9lYIzp489Z
RT @commieleejones: "It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to having falsified research at least once, and up to 34% admi…
@JuanCarlos22274 @JoseMJG que las autoridades recomienden B12 sublingual a toda la población aumentará drásticamente la morbi-mortalidad, que hubiera podido ser atenuada/evitada. 2/2 https://t.co/lBfOHTiKnu
RT @commieleejones: "It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to having falsified research at least once, and up to 34% admi…
RT @commieleejones: "It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to having falsified research at least once, and up to 34% admi…
As much as I hate fabrication and misconduct, what is not less serious is when people cowardly tow the line and are afraid to question the system. I met honest people who will just not speak up out of fear, not out of dishonesty
RT @commieleejones: "It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to having falsified research at least once, and up to 34% admi…
Assumed above outcome was only possible bc the professors all approved (quite wittingly I imagine) https://t.co/1fnkXK8GBa
RT @commieleejones: "It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to having falsified research at least once, and up to 34% admi…
RT @commieleejones: "It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to having falsified research at least once, and up to 34% admi…
"It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to having falsified research at least once, and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this." https://t.co/9aHw2dh5sD
@morganhousel @brianportnoy @DeadCaitBounce @neiltyson ...14.12% acknowledged colleagues of falsification; 72% noted colleagues who had exhibited questionable research practices. Misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researcher
Can nudge lying on surveys by words you use? 😹 "Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct." [2009] https://t.co/X5NEEE9Jzv https:/
@literalbanana @Meaningness Sorry I missed this! The estimate comes from Fanelli et al and it's actually 2% https://t.co/vhUEbD8Hy3
RT @erika_pirzl: https://t.co/vJLtSoFiLQ How many scientists fabricate and falsity research 🤔
@GoeUnbefristet @maithi_nk "Aus Publikationsdruck zum Betrüger werden" Es gibt Grund zur Besorgnis über Integrität: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim 2% geben Fälschungen zu & denken das 14% oder 72% der Kollegen fälschen oder andere fragwürdige Praktiken ausü
Misconduct and questionable research practices do happen! According to https://t.co/I6GkDQrFMz -2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results at least once. -34% admitted other questionable research practices
RT @PhilJaeker: #IchbinHanna verleitet zu direktem Fehlverhalten. Genau wie unser extrem quantitatives Begutachtungssystem. Alles schon er…
Fake science is the real epidemic.
RT @PhilJaeker: #IchbinHanna verleitet zu direktem Fehlverhalten. Genau wie unser extrem quantitatives Begutachtungssystem. Alles schon er…
RT @PhilJaeker: #IchbinHanna verleitet zu direktem Fehlverhalten. Genau wie unser extrem quantitatives Begutachtungssystem. Alles schon er…
RT @PhilJaeker: #IchbinHanna verleitet zu direktem Fehlverhalten. Genau wie unser extrem quantitatives Begutachtungssystem. Alles schon er…
#IchbinHanna verleitet zu direktem Fehlverhalten. Genau wie unser extrem quantitatives Begutachtungssystem. Alles schon erlebt: Nochmal nachmessen? Lieber nicht. Datenpunkte entfernen die dem Trend widersprechen, ja klar. Und schlimmeres. https://t.co/5W
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data https://t.co/liEniGSXgn
@Andylowarousal @AnnMemmott @SueReviews @KristenBott @Noahsasson @milton_damian @Shona_Mu @MxOolong @DrAmyPearson @DjzemaLouiz @thewoodbug @liz_pellicano @DrMBotha Does anyone know of any comparable research for autism literature? https://t.co/lEzSqzewFm
@mpoessel @PBahners @ChristopHuber 7/ ... ist aber keine jüngere systematische Untersuchung bekannt, welche Fanellis Resultaten grundsätzlich widersprechen. [0] https://t.co/t34HSTT7JS [1] https://t.co/uMP1Nmjsru /end
Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. https://t.co
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
ॐ @Gopalee67 should people trust scientific research studies blindly? https://t.co/vpycbnDwSc
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @sallyKP: Many scientists intentionally fabricate data and falsify scientific research. 👉🏼In one survey, 81% of research trainees in t…
RT @PhilJaeker: @MicrobiomDigest Reading work from @DFanDaBiasedMan such as: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim we shouldn't be so surprised anymore.…
RT @PhilJaeker: @MicrobiomDigest Reading work from @DFanDaBiasedMan such as: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim we shouldn't be so surprised anymore.…
@MicrobiomDigest Reading work from @DFanDaBiasedMan such as: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim we shouldn't be so surprised anymore. "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
RT @mattjhodgkinson: At Nature, @Richvn has been busy covering COVID-19, but finds time to cover #researchintegrity too. Notes 2% of resear…
RT @mattjhodgkinson: At Nature, @Richvn has been busy covering COVID-19, but finds time to cover #researchintegrity too. Notes 2% of resear…
At Nature, @Richvn has been busy covering COVID-19, but finds time to cover #researchintegrity too. Notes 2% of researchers admit to fabricating, falsifying, or modifying data: https://t.co/qUjbXVA6lY. Fostered by use of metrics, esp. in Chinese hospitals.
RT @NBTiller: 34% - some food for thought on a Thursday morning. #science #research #data #academia https://t.co/IbZ97Fj94I https://t.co…
RT @NBTiller: 34% - some food for thought on a Thursday morning. #science #research #data #academia https://t.co/IbZ97Fj94I https://t.co…
RT @NBTiller: 34% - some food for thought on a Thursday morning. #science #research #data #academia https://t.co/IbZ97Fj94I https://t.co…
😳😳
34% - some food for thought on a Thursday morning. #science #research #data #academia https://t.co/IbZ97Fj94I https://t.co/BPtcDrzov5
@blitztheumbreon @InaneDragon @JordanBassior @michaelthups @AlucardTheFker "In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Misconducts were reported more frequently by medical
@phicatz @JordanBassior @AlucardTheFker @InaneDragon @michaelthups https://t.co/8z0MmgExe4 There you are. Glad I could bring it to your attention.
@drdevangm Don't know if you are already aware of @DFanDaBiasedMan work: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim Way more common than we might think.
@sofain What is your level of expertise to properly assess, critique and analyze anything in a scientific paper? Scientists, lie, misrepresent, falsify and do junk science that is proven wrong later. https://t.co/PIydItUj10
@MDemantowsky @faznet Ein gesundes Maß an Skepsis ist notwenig. Ich glaube, dieses Maß wurde in vielen Fächern überschritten & nicht nur in Deutschland. Völlig falsches Anreizesystem welches Qualität eher bestraft. Es wird sich bewusst ethisch falsch
@JMWiarda @RFHKoeln "Wir unterstellen erst einmal jedem Akademiker und jeder Wissenschaftlerin, dass er und sie sich an die Regeln der Wissenschaft halten." Da wäre ich zurückhaltender: https://t.co/5W9sFCH59U Vermeintlicher Wettbewerb (Metrik-Tyrannei)
@TyotoRiffle @josiahrooney @PeterPhoban @JoeBiden You have the same search engine as me. Google it! Obviously you can type. https://t.co/8DyRd8MRIl
@dfg_public Kleine Denkanregung, danke an @Lab_Journal für den Hinweis: https://t.co/5W9sFCpuim https://t.co/ZrIGpHBRfa "Über ein Drittel beschuldigte sich also anonym selbst der ‚questionable research practices‘ oder schlimmeren Fehlverhaltens."
@GeorgeDavies4 @Rubiespal I think you are naive if you believe scientists are immune from corruption https://t.co/NwNek3TwO4
@autismcrisis @SueReviews @AnnMemmott I do not know if there is a comparable study for autism research. I think it would potentially yield some damning results (the entrenched low research standards for autism would predict that). https://t.co/5231eCwuTG
@Pol_core @stephenniem how are you supposed to state that someone falsified their data unless you are there for the experiments or observations? there are so many examples of blatantly falsified data from more scientific fields w/o a whistle-blower it's
@elisa8283 @ierrejon Personalmente a ninguno. Danielle Fanelli del LSE a unos cuantos. https://t.co/7mbFeCub2l
@naivemrc @SRamakrishnaL @cmarinmuller Interesante argumento, creerse que la ciencia ocurre fuera del humane. Con respecto a estudios, estos cuentan? https://t.co/hAreL8qtRw https://t.co/3GEMFeWoWT https://t.co/0bqPr0wpj7 <-- acerca de por qué nos emp
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--a serious form of misconduct by any standard https://t.co/EpUeI6c1IT
@fesshole Only about 2% admit it in surveys, so hopefully still pretty rare. https://t.co/8UB72ZeCVC
Mais également tout un tas de pratiques qu'on classe dans ce qu'on appelle la "zone grise" car trop floues pour être définies comme actes spécifiques de méconduite. Les cas documentés de méconduite sont estimés à entre 1/100 000 et 1/10 000. https://t.co
@metroidkillah @ThoughtSlime I don’t assume this. not everyone is disciplined enough to do science even when well trained. We are human. Flawed, biased, irrational, ideologically driven and they can be just wrong. I try to apply... https://t.co/PIydItUj10
@CreeganPhilip @nathansldennis @realAAAbbott @ClarkeMicah Study published in the Public Library of Science Journal, that found“up to 72%” of scientists admitted their colleagues were engaged in “questionable research practices,” and that just over 14% of t
@Rootbrian_ @Christi45657364 @JohnTory 72% of scientists admitted their colleagues were engaged in “questionable research practices,” and that just over 14% of them were engaged in outright “falsification”? https://t.co/s9GHuvGdJi
@juanpicabj_ @MPubertarioA Gran parte de los estudios científicos actuales serían más improbables que un libro (véanse https://t.co/VLYcYjfbd1 y https://t.co/X0v2Lwe341). Hoy en día cualquiera hace ciencia por cualquier intención...
RT @cbokhove: Mention of this this 2009 paper https://t.co/GyfVsy4bdK (not sure I find it a very strong paper. But at least I'm glad the p…
Mention of this this 2009 paper https://t.co/GyfVsy4bdK (not sure I find it a very strong paper. But at least I'm glad the percentages weren't multiplied by the total number of scientists) #korc20
@Chandle74418127 @babington_tom @DeanReyniers @KenDBerryMD Why do you trust scientists? https://t.co/PIydItUj10
@ColinVParker @YIMBY_Princeton @JakeAnbinder @ladydreamspeed I know of at least two incidents of sexual harassment at previous institutions where the victim was pushed to stay quiet or quit. That's just the tip of the iceberg Also 2% of researchers freely
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data - PubMed https://t.co/dhfclX6cnp
Evidentemente la muestra es muy pequeña pero sirve para reflexionar. Para ver que la respuesta a muchas de estas preguntas no es 0%. Que hay respuestas de 1 y 2 dígitos. Fanelli en 2009 publicó en @PLOSONE un metaanálisis con resultados bastante similares
@Scott_7791 @reason but you should know that questionable practices occur right here in America (33% of scientists admitted to “questionable practices in this study! https://t.co/Ut095bA3Su)
@asemota 'Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs showed how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data IN THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS JOURNALS.'* 5/. https://t.co/hymK0r9e3A
RT @4talalblog: Scientific Misconduct الإخلال بالأمانة العلمية تشير دراسة الى أن ٢% من الباحثيين اعترفوا بممارسات تخلل بالامانة العلمية كا…
RT @4talalblog: Scientific Misconduct الإخلال بالأمانة العلمية تشير دراسة الى أن ٢% من الباحثيين اعترفوا بممارسات تخلل بالامانة العلمية كا…
RT @4talalblog: Scientific Misconduct الإخلال بالأمانة العلمية تشير دراسة الى أن ٢% من الباحثيين اعترفوا بممارسات تخلل بالامانة العلمية كا…
RT @4talalblog: Scientific Misconduct الإخلال بالأمانة العلمية تشير دراسة الى أن ٢% من الباحثيين اعترفوا بممارسات تخلل بالامانة العلمية كا…
RT @4talalblog: Scientific Misconduct الإخلال بالأمانة العلمية تشير دراسة الى أن ٢% من الباحثيين اعترفوا بممارسات تخلل بالامانة العلمية كا…
Scientific Misconduct الإخلال بالأمانة العلمية تشير دراسة الى أن ٢% من الباحثيين اعترفوا بممارسات تخلل بالامانة العلمية كالتزوير وتلفيق البيانات.. الخ. هذا ما اعترف به البعض فقط ، فإذا كان هذا ممكن في العلم المنضبط جدا جدا ، فما بالك بغيره ؟ الدراسة: ht
@SigmundFriedri1 @schneiderleonid Bad science practices are common. In one study - 34% of scientists fess up to it anonymously and 2% fess up to blatant fabrication of data. When asked about their colleagues, the numbers shoot up to 72% and 14%. So it's al
It may surprise you to learn how often the numbers ㄥƖƐ "In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, fabrication, falsification & modification had been observed, on average, by over 14% of respondents, & other questionable practices by up t
RT @fcmfcs2019: "About 2% of scientists admitted having fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results at least once. Up to 30% admitte…