{"id":2738,"date":"2012-03-21T15:28:02","date_gmt":"2012-03-21T15:28:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/ofschemesandmemes\/?p=2738"},"modified":"2012-09-04T11:50:26","modified_gmt":"2012-09-04T10:50:26","slug":"science-online-nyc-sonyc-10-setting-the-research-record-straight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/ofschemesandmemes\/2012\/03\/21\/science-online-nyc-sonyc-10-setting-the-research-record-straight","title":{"rendered":"Science Online NYC (SoNYC) 10 \u2013 Setting the research record straight"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Thursday evening, we hosted the tenth\u00a0instalment\u00a0<\/a>of the monthly Science Online NYC (SoNYC) discussion series.\u00a0For this month\u2019s event, the topic for debate was, “Setting the research record straight.”<\/a><\/p>\n

The internet has enabled the faster and more thorough dissemination of published science, meaning that more eyes than ever are available to check the accuracy, veracity and integrity of the research record. With our enhanced ability to spot plagiarism and image manipulation electronically, it appears that the frequency with which we’ve flagged potentially fraudulent or plagiarized papers has gone up. This panel will look at the trends in retractions and how they relate to real or perceived increases in research misconduct. We hope to discuss what steps publications are taking to deal with the sloppy or fraudulent research practices that sometimes result in retractions, and also what research institutions are doing to investigate and deter such practices. Is the system broken, and what can researchers do to help fix it if it is?<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Preparing for the event\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In anticipation of the discussion,\u00a0we ran a series of guest posts here on Of Schemes and Memes,<\/a>\u00a0discussing what steps publications are taking to deal with fraudulent research practices and what is being done to investigate and deter such practices. First we heard from\u00a0Richard Van Noorden,\u00a0Assistant News Editor at Nature. He\u00a0gave us\u00a0an\u00a0overview\u00a0<\/a>of \u00a0what retractions can tell us about setting the research record straight, highlighting some recent high profile cases of retraction,\u00a0revealing why retraction rates appear to be increasing. We also compiled a Storify from a session at February’s AAAS meeting in Vancouver on\u00a0Global Challenges to Peer Review<\/a>\u00a0which touched on some of the challenges faced by journal editors. Next we heard from\u00a0Dorothy\u00a0Clyde (Dot),\u00a0Senior Editor at Nature Protocols, detailing\u00a0the role an editor plays<\/a>\u00a0in avoiding plagiarism,\u00a0giving advice to all parties. In our final post, SoNYC panel member\u00a0Ivan Oransky, executive editor of Reuters Health, explained the concept behind<\/a> the Retraction Watch blog.<\/p>\n

This month\u2019s panel:<\/strong><\/p>\n