Book contents
- Studying Primates
- Studying Primates
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Asking Questions about Primates
- 2 Ethics in Primatology
- 3 Keeping Science Healthy: Research Integrity
- 4 Inclusive Science
- 5 Understanding Statistical Evidence
- 6 Communicating Ideas in Writing
- 7 Introduction to the Primates
- 8 Why Study Primates?
- 9 Identifying a Research Question
- 10 Finding Out What We Know
- 11 Reading Journal Articles
- 12 Formulating Hypotheses and Predictions and Designing a Study
- 13 Observing and Manipulating
- 14 Choosing Measures
- 15 Planning Data Analysis
- 16 Sampling and Statistical Power
- 17 Checking Feasibility and Finalising Your Plans
- 18 Writing a Research Proposal
- 19 Collecting Data
- 20 Conducting Fieldwork
- 21 Analysing and Interpreting Data
- 22 Writing a Scientific Report
- 23 Submitting to a Peer-Reviewed Journal
- 24 Presenting Your Work at a Conference
- 25 Conclusions
- Index
- References
3 - Keeping Science Healthy: Research Integrity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2019
Book contents
- Studying Primates
- Studying Primates
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Asking Questions about Primates
- 2 Ethics in Primatology
- 3 Keeping Science Healthy: Research Integrity
- 4 Inclusive Science
- 5 Understanding Statistical Evidence
- 6 Communicating Ideas in Writing
- 7 Introduction to the Primates
- 8 Why Study Primates?
- 9 Identifying a Research Question
- 10 Finding Out What We Know
- 11 Reading Journal Articles
- 12 Formulating Hypotheses and Predictions and Designing a Study
- 13 Observing and Manipulating
- 14 Choosing Measures
- 15 Planning Data Analysis
- 16 Sampling and Statistical Power
- 17 Checking Feasibility and Finalising Your Plans
- 18 Writing a Research Proposal
- 19 Collecting Data
- 20 Conducting Fieldwork
- 21 Analysing and Interpreting Data
- 22 Writing a Scientific Report
- 23 Submitting to a Peer-Reviewed Journal
- 24 Presenting Your Work at a Conference
- 25 Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
Research integrity means conducting science in such a way that others can be confident in the methods we used and trust the findings we report. In addition to our responsibility to understand and comply with the ethical and legal obligations associated with our research, research integrity involves scrupulous honesty and the highest standards of rigour. However, a combination of our own biases, distorted career incentives, poor understanding of study design, and misuse of statistical analysis lead to practices that damage science (questionable research practices). Such practices undermine the validity of studies and increase the chance of erroneous results, leading to a literature based on false positive conclusions and studies that can’t be replicated. The inability to replicate the findings of published studies has been popularised as the replication crisis, particularly in medicine and psychology. In this chapter, I first define research misconduct and its consequences. I then review responsible practices and how to avoid questionable research practices. We’ll revisit these issues throughout the book.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Studying PrimatesHow to Design, Conduct and Report Primatological Research, pp. 31 - 44Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Further Reading
Polka, J, Kiley, R, Konforti, B, Sterna, B, Vale, RD. 2018. Publish peer reviews. Nature 560: 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w. A call for open review of manuscripts, with a useful history of peer review.Google Scholar
Setchell, JM. 2015. Double-blind peer review and the advantages of sharing data. International Journal of Primatology 36: 891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9860-2. Editorial announcing that the International Journal of Primatology has implemented double-blind peer review.Google Scholar
Further Reading
Albert, T. 2003. How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. The COPE Report. https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf [Accessed 2 May 2019].Google Scholar
Brand, A, Allen, L, Altman, M, Hlava, M, Scott, J. 2015. Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing 28: 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211. Describes a contributor role taxonomy identifying specific contributions to published research.Google Scholar
Clymo, RS. 2014. Reporting Research: A Biologist’s Guide to Articles, Talks, and Posters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 4 covers authorship.Google Scholar
Council of Science Editors. Authorship and Authorship Responsibilities. www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/ [Accessed 9 January 2019]. Principles to guide authorship-related decisions, policies, practices, and responsibilities.Google Scholar
Gaffey, A. 2015. Determining and negotiating authorship. Psychological Science Agenda. www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/06/determining-authorship.aspx [Accessed 9 January 2019]. Includes examples of authorship contracts.Google Scholar
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html [Accessed 9 January 2019]. Defines criteria for authorship.Google Scholar
McNutt, MK, Bradford, M, Drazen, JM, Hanson, B, Howard, B, Jamieson, KH, Kiermer, V, Marcus, E, Pope, BK, Schekman, R, Swaminathan, S, Stang, PJ, Verma, IM. 2018. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 201715374. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115. Proposes standards for authorship, describes the responsibilities of corresponding authors and recommends use of ORCID identifiers for authors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.13 Further Reading
All European Academies. 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Revised Edition. Berlin, Germany: ALLEA – All European Academies. www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017-1.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2019]. Defines the principles of research integrity, describes good research practices, and outlines violations of research integrity.Google Scholar
Borries, C, Sandel, AA, Koenig, A, Fernandez-Duque, E, Kamilar, JM, Amoroso, CR, Barton, RA, Bray, J, Di Fiore, A, Gilby, IC, Gordon, AD, Mundry, R, Port, M, Powell, LE, Pusey, AE, Spriggs, A, Nunn, CL. 2016. Transparency, usability, and reproducibility: Guiding principles for improving comparative databases using primates as examples. Evolutionary Anthropology 25: 232–238. Highlights the need to improve the transparency of comparative data and proposes guidelines for doing so.Google Scholar
Center for Open Science: https://cos.io/ [Accessed 3 January 2019]. The Center for Open Science aims to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. Includes guidelines for transparency and openness in research.Google Scholar
Forstmeier, W, Wagenmakers, EJ, Parker, TH. 2017. Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings: a practical guide. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 92: 1941–1968. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12315. Reviews problematic practices in science and highlights strategies to promote better science, including preregistration, blind data collection and analysis, and comprehensive reporting of results.Google Scholar
Fraser, H, Parker, T, Nakagawa, S, Barnett, A, Fidler, F. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLOS ONE 13: e0200303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200303. Results of a survey showing that questionable research practices are common in ecology and evolution.Google Scholar
Harris, R. 2017. Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions. New York: Basic Books. Describes the ‘reproducibility crisis’ in biomedical research; relevant to all science.Google Scholar
Holman, L, Head, ML, Lanfear, R, Jennions, MD. 2015. Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: Why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biology 13: e1002190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002190. Reviews how researchers’ expectations influence study outcomes and the need for blind protocols.Google Scholar
Ihle, M, Winney, IS, Krysalli, A, Croucher, M. 2017. Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists. Behavioral Ecology 28: 348–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx003. Outlines the challenges facing science and provides guidelines and tutorials on open practices for behavioural ecologists.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2: e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Examines biases that affect research outcomes and how we can address them.Google Scholar
Kerr, NL. 1998. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2: 196–217. Defines HARKing, presents data suggesting that it is common and explains why this is a problem.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, BA, Ebersole, CR, DeHaven, AC, Mellor, DT. 2018. The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115: 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114. Distinguishes between postdiction and prediction, and explains why they are often confused. Highlights the benefits of preregistration and addresses some of the practical difficulties involved in implementing preregistration.Google Scholar
Parker, TH, Bowman, SD, Nakagawa, S, Gurevitch, J, Mellor, DT, Rosenblatt, RP, DeHaven, AC. 2018. Tools for Transparency in Ecology and Evolution (TTEE). http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/G65CB. A checklist of questions to help authors comply with transparency and openness promotion guidelines and to help reviewers and editors assess that compliance.Google Scholar
Simmons, JP, Nelson, LD, Simonsohn, U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22: 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632. Shows that flexibility in data collection, analysis and reporting dramatically increases false-positive rates and proposes requirements for authors and guidelines for reviewers to resolve this problem.Google Scholar
World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. http://wcrif.org/statement [Accessed 3 January 2019]. An international effort to create a global guide to responsible research conduct.Google Scholar
Smaldino, PE, McElreath, R. 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science 3: 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384. Reviews the incentives that favour poor scientific practice and shows that selection for high output leads to poor science.Google Scholar
Universities UK. Concordat to Support Research Integrity. www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2012/the-concordat-to-support-research-integrity.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2019]. The UK national framework for good research conduct and its governance.Google Scholar
US Office of Research Integrity: https://ori.hhs.gov [Accessed 3 January 2019]. Useful resources on responsible research conduct and research integrity.Google Scholar
Wicherts, JM. 2017. The weak spots in contemporary science (and how to fix them). Animals 7: 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120090. A review of problems in science, possible explanations for them, and how to deal with them.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum Young Scientists. Code of Ethics for Researchers. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. http://wef.ch/coe [Accessed 3 January 2019]. Seven principles of being an ethical scientist, by an international group of scientists.Google Scholar