4.3 Article

Frauds in scientific research and how to possibly overcome them

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
卷 47, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106639

关键词

scientific research; professional misconduct; research ethics; publication ethics; public health ethics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper highlights the commonality of frauds and misconduct in the history of science, emphasizing the risks and consequences of recent events related to COVID-19. It suggests strengthening journal policies and utilizing blockchain technology to improve the research process in order to prevent the repetition of mistakes in research history.
Frauds and misconduct have been common in the history of science. Recent events connected to the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted how the risks and consequences of this are no longer acceptable. Two papers, addressing the treatment of COVID-19, have been published in two of the most prestigious medical journals; the authors declared to have analysed electronic health records from a private corporation, which apparently collected data of tens of thousands of patients, coming from hundreds of hospitals. Both papers have been retracted a few weeks later. When such events happen, the confidence of the population in scientific research is likely to be weakened. This paper highlights how the current system endangers the reliability of scientific research, and the very foundations of the trust system on which modern healthcare is based. Having shed light on the dangers of a system without appropriate monitoring, the proposed analysis suggests to strengthen the existing journal policies and improve the research process using new technologies supporting control activities by public authorities. Among these solutions, we mention the promising aspects of the blockchain technology which seems a promising solution to avoid the repetition of the mistakes linked to the recent and past history of research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据