Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

  title={Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure},
  author={David Robert Grimes and Chris T. Bauch and John P. A. Ioannidis},
  journal={Royal Society Open Science},
The scientific endeavor pivots on the accurate reporting of experimental and theoretical findings, and consequently scientific publication is immensely important. As the number of active scientists continues to increase, there is concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive where careless and fraudulent research can thrive. This is compounded by the predisposition of top-tier journals towards novel or positive findings rather than negative results or… 

Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science

Modified lotteries, which allocate funding randomly among proposals that pass a threshold for methodological rigour, effectively reduce the rate of false discoveries, particularly when paired with open science improvements that increase the publication of negative results and improve the quality of peer review.

The natural selection of good science.

This work model the cultural evolution of research practices when laboratories are allowed to expend effort on theory, enabling them, at a cost, to identify hypotheses that are more likely to be true, before empirical testing.

The new normal? Redaction bias in biomedical science

It is demonstrated that the removal of a surprisingly small number of data points can be used to dramatically alter a result, and the impact of inappropriate redaction beyond a threshold value in biomedical science is formally quantified.

Research practices and statistical reporting quality in 250 economic psychology master's theses: a meta-research investigation

This work investigated the statistical reporting quality and selected indicators of questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychology students' master's theses, along with statistical power, the consistency and completeness of reported results, and possible indications of p-hacking and further testing.

Understanding of researcher behavior is required to improve data reliability

Meta-research that establishes an understanding of the factors that determine researcher behavior is urgently needed and can be used to implement and iteratively improve measures that incentivize researchers to apply the highest standards, resulting in high-quality data.

The Problem of Irreproducible Bioscience Research

  • J. Flier
  • Psychology
    Perspectives in biology and medicine
  • 2022
abstract:Over recent decades, progress in bioscience research has been remarkable, but alongside the many transformative advances is a growing concern that a surprisingly high fraction of published

Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research

The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants (N

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

A novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality is introduced.

The Scientific Ponzi Scheme

Fraud and misleading research represent serious impediments to scientific progress. We must uncover the causes of fraud in order to understand how science functions and in order to develop strategies

Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study

A previously published simulation of the research world was adapted and random audits that could detect and remove labs with a high proportion of false positives were added, and the behaviour of “child” and “parent” labs who increased their effort and so lowered their probability of making a false positive error.



Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward.

The criteria by which scientists and their teams are rewarded for their efforts by agencies that fund them and institutions that host them should be revisited, aligning criteria with the desired outcomes: research that is productive, high-quality, reproducible, shareable, and translatable.

The natural selection of bad science

A 60-year meta-analysis of statistical power in the behavioural sciences is presented and it is shown that power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power, and that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration.

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias is verified, which might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.

Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer

Fully half of peer-reviewed and implemented social science experiments are not published, providing direct evidence of publication bias and identifying the stage of research production at which publication bias occurs: Authors do not write up and submit null findings.

Replication, Communication, and the Population Dynamics of Scientific Discovery

A mathematical model of scientific discovery that combines hypothesis formation, replication, publication bias, and variation in research quality is developed and it is found that communication of negative replications may aid true discovery even when attempts to replicate have diminished power.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.

Publish or perish: Where are we heading?

  • S. RawatS. Meena
  • Education
    Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
  • 2014
The emphasis on publishing has decreased the value of the resulting scholarship as scholar must spend time scrambling to publish whatever they can manage, rather than spend time developing significant research agenda.

A manifesto for reproducible science

This work argues for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducible and efficiency of scientific research.

Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research

Focus on the “normal misbehaviors” that are part of the ordinary life of researchers allows us to see the way the organization of science generates both compliance and deviance from ethical norms.

Meta-assessment of bias in science

The findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis.