Premium
Presión para publicar: catalizadores de la pérdida de integridad en la publicación científica
Author(s) -
Hayer CariAnn,
Kaemingk Mark,
Breeggemann Jason J.,
Dembkowski Daniel,
Deslauriers David,
Rapp Tobias
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
fisheries
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.725
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1548-8446
pISSN - 0363-2415
DOI - 10.1080/03632415.2013.813845
Subject(s) - publication , scientific writing , publishing , context (archaeology) , gratification , consistency (knowledge bases) , public relations , promotion (chess) , product (mathematics) , psychology , computer science , political science , social psychology , law , history , art , geometry , literature , mathematics , archaeology , artificial intelligence , politics
Publishing research is the final step in the scientific process and is used as the primary means for disseminating research findings to the scientific community. Publishing can embody many personal motivations (e.g., gratification, seeing a finished product in print, desire to further science) for authors as well as professional benefits (e.g., promotion, tenure, future funding opportunities). As the scientific workforce and competition for jobs and funding increase, publishing productivity has become a driving factor for many authors, which may lead to writing practices that violate integrity. In this essay, we discuss writing actions that may be considered a violation of integrity in the context of traditional manuscript sections (introduction and discussion, methods, and results). We define “integrity” as consistency of actions that reflect honesty and truthfulness. Writing the introduction and discussion can be compared to an artistic creation because the rendition of the data may vary depending on the intentions and experience of the author. Some authors may be tempted to relate their research to a hot topic (e.g., climate change, model selection) in an attempt to increase publication success or maximize visibility in search engines, despite not having sufficient data to support their conclusions. Caution must be taken to not overextend the “story” beyond the bounds of the data. Modification of the methods and results sections contains the most extreme cases of scientific integrity violations (e.g., changing an alpha level, only presenting positive results, running numerous tests until desired outcome). Manipulation of methods or results is more difficult to detect by peer review. We believe that however destructive integrity violations may be, despite benefits to the author (e.g., accolades, publication, potential citations, promotion, etc.), the individual scientist should hold him‐ or herself accountable and to a high standard to avoid sacrificing integrity.