This reminds me of faulty news reports in two very different fields where I have expertise.
For many years I was an engineer. I enjoyed reading news stories about engineering. For most of those, I was not deeply familiar with the topics of the stories, and I tended to believe the news. But a pattern emerged: when a story was about something I *did* know well, it invariably made some claim I knew to be false. I even met with one of the offending reporters. The reported was clearly more interested in selling stories than telling the truth.
Later I went into epidemiology, where my specialty is autism. Similar things happened. Both news stories and journal papers about autism epidemiology frequently contain claims that are at best not supported by the evidence.
That raises the question: what should one do about that? Writing to the editors and authors has generally not produced any meaningful corrective action. No matter whether the note is direct about the evidence or a very politely worded question, the result is the same. Going full bore publicly to address such problems might raise its own problems, as you alluded to in your piece here.
Speaking of things which just don't sound right ... I'm reading a book now by an author I enjoy, and at one point, it claims Japan imported 67 million tons of rice in 1940 or thereabouts, when its population was 70 million. One ton per person per year, in a country which grows a lot of its own rice. That's 3.6 pounds of rice a day. I flagged it (kindle). I don't think it's fraud or anything deliberate. Did they just drop a decimal point? Don't know. But it just doesn't pass the smell test, and it's the kind of thing a proofreader should have flagged.
ETA: The problem is not this one insignificant error, The problem is the doubt it sets up about other data of which I know nothing. Whether it is sloppy writing, data gathering, proofreading, or typesetting, it raises my brain's spidey sense. I have since found other lapses in the book, still all insignificant, and while the book is still interesting and worth finishing, it does make me read it with doubt in mind.
That's interesting. It's exactly the type of thing to follow-up further on. Stuff like this can be an innocent mistake, and my guess would be, more often than not, that's what it is. But regardless of the intention (error or deceit), it deserves some attention.
And, that's how many of these research misconduct cases start... Something just doesn't add up. Upon further investigation, a pattern emerges.
Exactly. I haven't yet found any more clear errors, just things which could be taken different ways. If that 67 million tons is the only thing I find wrong, I'll write it off as insignificant. But I hate having the seeds of doubt sowed like that.
This reminds me of faulty news reports in two very different fields where I have expertise.
For many years I was an engineer. I enjoyed reading news stories about engineering. For most of those, I was not deeply familiar with the topics of the stories, and I tended to believe the news. But a pattern emerged: when a story was about something I *did* know well, it invariably made some claim I knew to be false. I even met with one of the offending reporters. The reported was clearly more interested in selling stories than telling the truth.
Later I went into epidemiology, where my specialty is autism. Similar things happened. Both news stories and journal papers about autism epidemiology frequently contain claims that are at best not supported by the evidence.
That raises the question: what should one do about that? Writing to the editors and authors has generally not produced any meaningful corrective action. No matter whether the note is direct about the evidence or a very politely worded question, the result is the same. Going full bore publicly to address such problems might raise its own problems, as you alluded to in your piece here.
Speaking of things which just don't sound right ... I'm reading a book now by an author I enjoy, and at one point, it claims Japan imported 67 million tons of rice in 1940 or thereabouts, when its population was 70 million. One ton per person per year, in a country which grows a lot of its own rice. That's 3.6 pounds of rice a day. I flagged it (kindle). I don't think it's fraud or anything deliberate. Did they just drop a decimal point? Don't know. But it just doesn't pass the smell test, and it's the kind of thing a proofreader should have flagged.
ETA: The problem is not this one insignificant error, The problem is the doubt it sets up about other data of which I know nothing. Whether it is sloppy writing, data gathering, proofreading, or typesetting, it raises my brain's spidey sense. I have since found other lapses in the book, still all insignificant, and while the book is still interesting and worth finishing, it does make me read it with doubt in mind.
That's interesting. It's exactly the type of thing to follow-up further on. Stuff like this can be an innocent mistake, and my guess would be, more often than not, that's what it is. But regardless of the intention (error or deceit), it deserves some attention.
And, that's how many of these research misconduct cases start... Something just doesn't add up. Upon further investigation, a pattern emerges.
Exactly. I haven't yet found any more clear errors, just things which could be taken different ways. If that 67 million tons is the only thing I find wrong, I'll write it off as insignificant. But I hate having the seeds of doubt sowed like that.