Scientists behaving badly

By B. Martinson, M. Anderson, R. Vries. Nature, 2005

1,015 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9ef46a0cfddf29caa35abb3c0b07ccf5cf807800

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. Daniele Fanelli
2. George Loewenstein

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Brian A. Nosek
2. Jeffrey R. Spies
3. Matt Motyl
4. Drazen Prelec
5. George Loewenstein
6. Leslie K. John
7. Daniele Fanelli
8. P. Newton

Citations in the corpus

• Environmental Influences on Ethical Decision Making: Climate and Environmental Predictors of Research Integrity (2007, background): “In fact, these less dramatic forms of unethical behavior appear to be relatively common ( Martinson, Anderson, & de Vries, 2005 ) and may represent a noteworthy threat to the integrity of the scientific enterprise.”
• Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication (2018, neutral): “Yes , there is an epidemic of misinterpretation of statistics and what amounts to scientific misconduct, even though it is common practice (such as selectively reporting studies that “worked” or that were “significant”; Martinson, Anderson, and de Vries 2005; John, Loewenstein, and Prelec 2012).”
• Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012, background): “Concerns over scientific misconduct have led previous researchers to estimate the prevalence of QRPs that are broadly applicable to scientists (Martinson et al., 2005).”
• ARTICLES: Validation of Ethical Decision Making Measures: Evidence for a New Set of Measures (2006, background): “ Martinson et al. (2005) asked investigators to report exposure to unethical behaviors.”
• An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology (2007, background): “Contextual values also influence scientists when they make value judgments in the course of their research (methodological value judgments, see Shrader-Frechette 1994, p. 53), which sometimes extend to more overt forms of research misconduct that lessen scientific objectivity (see Martinson et al. ”
• Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability (2012, background): “The following are practices that are justifiable sometimes but can also increase the proportion of published false results: (a) leveraging chance by running many low-powered studies, rather than a few high-powered ones3 (Ioannidis, 2005); (b) uncritically dismissing “failed” studies as pilot tests o”
• Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010, background): “However, in most circumstances this might be nothing more than a ‘‘gut feeling’’ [49].”
• How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009, methodology): “All the above results were robust with respect to inclusion or exclusion of any particular study, with perhaps one exception: Martinson et al. (2005) [19], which is one of the largest and most frequently cited surveys on misconduct published to date.”