False allegations cannot go unchallenged: an appeal to shield researchers from dubious methods and ambiguous motives

Résumé

Before launching an investigation or releasing allegations, researchers, journals, and the public should seek advice from statisticians and epidemiologists who do not work directly or indirectly with complainants or engage in whistleblowing. Journals should refrain from publishing defamatory statements based on unproven methods. In line with this concept, JAMA published an editorial (1) stating that “the first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct... In some cases, when authors are accused of misconduct, the criticism represents a different interpretation of the data or disagreement with the statistical approach used, rather than scientific misconduct...This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.” In this scientific rebuttal, I provide a real-world example of how unproven methods can damage and stress out researchers, how they should respond, and when they should disclose the case to the public.

Citer ce document

Accès au document

Ce document est hébergé sur son dépôt institutionnel d'origine.

Auteur(s)

Statistiques

Consultations : 1

Téléchargements : 0