David F. Marks and Roderick D. Buchanan, King’s College London’s enquiry into Hans J Eysenck’s ‘Unsafe’ publications must be properly completed. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Health Psychology
This journal recently drew attention to an extensive body of highly questionable research published by Hans J. Eysenck in collaboration with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. The subsequent enquiry by King’s College London concluded that 26 publications were unsafe and warranted retraction. However, the enquiry reviewed only a subset of the 61 questionable publications initially submitted to them, only those Eysenck co-authored with Grossarth-Maticek. The enquiry excluded publications where Eysenck was the sole author. The King’s College London enquiry must be properly completed. They have a pressing responsibility to re-convene and broaden their review to include all Eysenck’s publications based on the same body of research – including an additional 27 publications recently uncovered. The unsatisfactory nature of the KCL review process makes the case for a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson even stronger.
The present deliverable combines a study of relevant legal requirements, codes and legislation (Section 1), in particular searching for remarkable commonalities and salient frictions, with a discussion on some of the upcoming regulatory challenges in the area of research integrity and scientific misconduct (Section 2). The selection of analysed instruments reflects the geographical spread of the PRINTEGER research project but is not exclusively limited to it, and includes references to international instruments as well as policy documents when suitable for contextualisation and assessment of the issues at stake.
Research Integrity and Peer Review
We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). In this article, we introduce and evaluate the national RCR guidelines. We also present statistics of alleged and proven RCR violation cases and frequency of appeals to TENK on the decisions or procedures of the primary institutions. In addition, we analyze the available data on seven investigated cases in more detail. Positive aspects in the Finnish system are a fairly good infrastructure to investigate suspected RCR violations and a wide concept of RCR violations, which consists of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misappropriation, and other misbehaviors. However, the guidelines contain poorly elaborated definitions, do not treat the complainant and the suspect in an equal way, and need to be revised. Confusion about the concepts and criteria of the RCR violations seems to be common in primary institutions and among the complainants. Even if research institutions and universities have officially adhered to the national RCR guidelines, slipping from the guidelines occurs quite commonly. All these factors lead to frequent dissatisfaction with the decisions or procedures applied, high rate of appeals to TENK, and far from optimal functionality of the system.
Journal of Health Psychology, 2020
A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society’s decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.
The Unwholesomeness of the Scientific Ecosystem in the Research Misconduct: A Breach of Duty
2023
Science is an important fixture in the human experience, and it has emerged from the shrouds of magic and fallacies. Science is now how humans come to understand the world around them. It is also the basis for the evolution and technological advancement of today's society. There are two major schools of thought in science: the inductive and the deductive (Wills, 2022). The latter has received wider acceptance and governs the experimentation (Wang et al., 2020). However, this process is marred by scientific misconduct when some researchers do not adhere to the rules of science for a variety of reasons (Lee, 2016). This threatens to compromise the integrity of our technological status and might even lead to catastrophic consequences. Examples include the fraudulent study on the cancer-fighting properties of plants published by Dr. M.D. Anderson (Ackerman, 2012) and Joachim Boldt published studies indicating that colloids are safe to use contrary to previous studies (Blake, 2011). It is therefore imperative to recognize these instances of misconduct and uproot them from the scientific community. The article is a review that looks into the articles dealing with scientific misconduct to develop an overview of the subject at hand. These incidents can be detrimental to the health and well-being of human beings. It can hinder progress as well as cause untold harm by the reemergence of diseases that have already been conquered. It is recommended that we foster a culture of scientific integrity where everyone is aware of the importance of this issue. Moreover, journals can be more diligent in their reviews and reliant on peer reviews.