This all reminds me of the detective-story gimmick where a crime is committed by a pair of identical twins. The idea is that even if there's clear evidence that one of the twins did it, it's impossible to prove which one did it, and so neither can be convicted of the crime.
How would you avoid discouraging reporting of fraud by a co-author, as in the Pruitt cases? It is already hard to ask a junior researcher to investigate and ultimately retract their own paper. If this also opened them to penalties it sure wouldn't make things easier.
One could say that all of Pruitt's co-authors should have scrutinized his data much more suspiciously, and this is true. But one can also say that people will fail to do this from time to time, and under your scheme, if they catch this failure later they are disincentivized (assuming there are penalties beyondretraction) from speaking up about it.
You hint that maybe there are no penalties beyond retraction. I don't know that I could stomach that in cases like, say Didier, where lives were literally at stake. I'm not sure I could stomach it in general. It's an awfully serious crime, research fraud.
I think you are completely correct in the FULL COURT PRESS of decission making. If you can't show me the data underlying the conclusions, the you need to be HANGED by it.
James:
This all reminds me of the detective-story gimmick where a crime is committed by a pair of identical twins. The idea is that even if there's clear evidence that one of the twins did it, it's impossible to prove which one did it, and so neither can be convicted of the crime.
How would you avoid discouraging reporting of fraud by a co-author, as in the Pruitt cases? It is already hard to ask a junior researcher to investigate and ultimately retract their own paper. If this also opened them to penalties it sure wouldn't make things easier.
One could say that all of Pruitt's co-authors should have scrutinized his data much more suspiciously, and this is true. But one can also say that people will fail to do this from time to time, and under your scheme, if they catch this failure later they are disincentivized (assuming there are penalties beyondretraction) from speaking up about it.
You hint that maybe there are no penalties beyond retraction. I don't know that I could stomach that in cases like, say Didier, where lives were literally at stake. I'm not sure I could stomach it in general. It's an awfully serious crime, research fraud.
Hi James,
Oliver here, that curmudgeon from Germany.
I think you are completely correct in the FULL COURT PRESS of decission making. If you can't show me the data underlying the conclusions, the you need to be HANGED by it.
No buts, ifs or other excuses!
That Ariely "investigations" is a travesity!
Macchiarini whistleblowers were found guilty by being coauthors.
https://forbetterscience.com/2018/06/25/karolinska-decides-on-macchiarini-and-jungebluth-papers/
Why would anyone blow the whistle then?