LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for FISH-SCI Archives


FISH-SCI Archives

FISH-SCI Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave FISH-SCI
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: #perchgate - Would you have spotted the fraud?
From: Chris Harrod <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Scientific forum on fish and fisheries <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:24:54 +0000
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)


I think that the minimum requirement of providing the data would lower the risk of this kind of thing, but whether I would have spotted it being fake is another thing. 
 
Good to see science correcting itself. Also, the big take home message is that if you are a co-author, you need to ensure that the data are what your student/colleagues say they are. 
 
Chris 
 
-------- Original message -------- 
From: Irene Zweimüller <[log in to unmask]> 
Date: 28/04/2017 17:06 (GMT-04:00) 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: #perchgate - Would you have spotted the fraud? 
 
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><> 
           REPLIES WILL BE SENT TO THE FISH-SCI LIST 
<><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <>< 
 
Several scientists twittered, that a study published in Science 
 
Lönnstedt & Eklöv (2016): Environmentally relevant concentrations of 
microplastic particles influence larval fish ecology 
 
Science 352: 1213-1216 
 
was more or less "thin air", e.g. not all of the experiments described 
were carried out. The University started an investigation and concluded 
misconduct. 
 
Now my question: as a reviewer, would you have detected the fraud? 
 
I found some mistakes in the statistics of the materials and methods 
sections (Supplement), but I´m not sure I would have raised hell about 
the data. 
 
Is it the responsibility of the reviewer to check, whether there was in 
fact an experiment performed? Or the responsibility of the University / 
field station etc to make sure, people do in fact work? 
 
How suspicious do we have to be? 
 
I always thought, that fish are too unpredictable to fake fish studies 
 
kind regards 
Irene 
 
-- 
---------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Irene Zweimüller 
Fakultät für Lebenswissenschaften 
Dept. für Integrative Zoologie 
Althanstr. 14 
A-1090 Wien 
Österreich 
 
Faculty of Lifesciences 
Dept. for Integrative Zoology 
Althanstr. 14 
A-1090 Vienna 
Austria 
-------------------------------------------------- 
 
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><> 
For information, send INFO FISH-SCI to [log in to unmask] 
 
                   The FISH-SCI List Archive 
         http://segate.sunet.se/cgi-bin/wa?A0=FISH-SCI 
 
     To cancel your subscription, send a blank message to: 
           [log in to unmask] 
<><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <>< 

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main FISH-SCI Page

Permalink



LISTSRV.NORDU.NET

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager