IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/frenxi/ycjha.html

Don't fall in common science pitfall!

Author

Listed:
  • Moustafa, Khaled

Abstract

The fundamental mission of science in providing knowledge and guidance for solving current and future challenges seems to be changing at accelerated pace, undoubtedly as a result of other economical, technological, and social deep changes. The trend is easily noticeable from an objective and neutral field toward an open, large, and unmerciful business market with many subjective and biased criteria for funding, hiring, promotion, and unscrupulous conducts in many cases. Due to a rubbish “publish-or-perish” mantra, the absence of ethical rules or the ignorance of their existence in a work environment, some scientists weave a kind of intentional or unintentional “tricks” to their way to do or to report science.

Suggested Citation

  • Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Don't fall in common science pitfall!," FrenXiv ycjha, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:frenxi:ycjha
    DOI: 10.31226/osf.io/ycjha
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5b3f9efe5b38c40010662e4e/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31226/osf.io/ycjha?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward Kiegle, 2007. "Profit or perish even worse than publish or perish," Nature, Nature, vol. 448(7153), pages 533-533, August.
    2. Mott Greene, 2007. "The demise of the lone author," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7173), pages 1165-1165, December.
    3. Hagen, Nils T., 2014. "Reversing the byline hierarchy: The effect of equalizing bias on the accreditation of primary, secondary and senior authors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 618-627.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katrin Hussinger & Maikel Pellens, 2019. "Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, May.
    2. João M. Fernandes & Miguel P. Monteiro, 2017. "Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 529-539, February.
    3. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    4. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    5. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca & José Antonio Salvador-Oliván & Rosario Arquero-Avilés, 2021. "Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5143-5164, June.
    7. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    8. Tariq Ahmad Shah & Sumeer Gul & Saimah Bashir & Suhail Ahmad & Assumpció Huertas & Andrea Oliveira & Farzana Gulzar & Ashaq Hussain Najar & Kanu Chakraborty, 2021. "Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4589-4606, June.
    9. Shila Abdi & Steffen Fieuws & Benoit Nemery & Kris Dierickx, 2021. "Do we achieve anything by teaching research integrity to starting PhD students?," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
    10. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    11. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    12. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    13. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    14. Klaas Sijtsma, 2016. "Playing with Data—Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 1-15, March.
    15. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    16. Cristina Blanco-Perez & Abel Brodeur, 2020. "Publication Bias and Editorial Statement on Negative Findings," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1226-1247.
    17. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    18. Petr Praus, 2025. "A note on the topic of single-author articles in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 3071-3088, May.
    19. Jennifer A. Byrne & Cyril Labbé, 2017. "Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1471-1493, March.
    20. Wencan Tian & Ruonan Cai & Zhichao Fang & Yu Geng & Xianwen Wang & Zhigang Hu, 2024. "Understanding co‐corresponding authorship: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(1), pages 3-23, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:frenxi:ycjha. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://frenxiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.