The President of Stanford (Marc Tessier-Lavigne) has recently come under investigation for a series of neuroscience papers that apparently had fake imagery in them.
Your proposal isn't groundbreaking. I've been told in every responsible conduct of research course that if my name is on a paper, I'm responsible for its contents. Totally need to address the issues leading to this such as publish/perish or ghostwriting which is especially prevalent in industry funded studies.
It shouldn't be that difficult for an author to review & analyze the sources & methods that were used in collecting data. Failure to do that seems purposeful. That way someone can shape the narrative & direction of science without being held responsible if his or her conclusions prove wrong.
Climate scientist John Christy confirmed what Obama's climate advisor (Steven Koonin) was telling us. The climate Change models don't reflect reality.
John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, compared 102 climate models against observations of actual climate changes from satellites and balloons (the troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere, up to a height of around 33,000 feet). What Christy found was that the climate models grossly overstated reality. Earth's temperature has only risen 1 degree in the last 100 years,
Today's weather aberrations (floods, storms, & heat) are totally consistent with has happened in the past 100 years.
That's a fair point. A hard and fast rule wouldn’t work in all circumstances, and in many collaborations (particularly interdisciplinary or international in nature), you wouldn’t expect each individual researcher to be responsible for the entire project. My main concern here is the phenomenon of higher-up folks who inflate their publication count by regularly taking credit for other people’s work, but run for the hills as soon as a problem arises.
Your proposal isn't groundbreaking. I've been told in every responsible conduct of research course that if my name is on a paper, I'm responsible for its contents. Totally need to address the issues leading to this such as publish/perish or ghostwriting which is especially prevalent in industry funded studies.
Also, to your point, people shouldn't allowed to add big names to their papers just to get funded or published. That is also inappropriate.
It shouldn't be that difficult for an author to review & analyze the sources & methods that were used in collecting data. Failure to do that seems purposeful. That way someone can shape the narrative & direction of science without being held responsible if his or her conclusions prove wrong.
Climate scientist John Christy confirmed what Obama's climate advisor (Steven Koonin) was telling us. The climate Change models don't reflect reality.
John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, compared 102 climate models against observations of actual climate changes from satellites and balloons (the troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere, up to a height of around 33,000 feet). What Christy found was that the climate models grossly overstated reality. Earth's temperature has only risen 1 degree in the last 100 years,
Today's weather aberrations (floods, storms, & heat) are totally consistent with has happened in the past 100 years.
That's a fair point. A hard and fast rule wouldn’t work in all circumstances, and in many collaborations (particularly interdisciplinary or international in nature), you wouldn’t expect each individual researcher to be responsible for the entire project. My main concern here is the phenomenon of higher-up folks who inflate their publication count by regularly taking credit for other people’s work, but run for the hills as soon as a problem arises.