Search

This is a snapshot of a Stage 1 registered report proposal for submission to PCI-RR.

The responsible conduct of research is foundational to the production of valid and trustworthy research. Despite this, our grasp of what dimensions responsible research (RR) might contain – and how it differs across disciplines (i.e., how it is conceptualized and operationalized) – is tenuous. Moreover, many initiatives related to developing and maintaining RR are developed within disciplinary and institutional silos which naturally limits the benefits that RR practice can have. To this end, we are working to develop a better understanding of how RR is conceived and realized, both across disciplines, and across institutions in Europe. The first step in doing this is to scope existing knowledge on the topic, of which this scoping review is a part. We searched several electronic databases for relevant published and grey literature. An initial sample of 715 articles was identified, with 75 articles included in the final sample for qualitative analysis. We find several dimensions of RR that are underemphasized or are excluded from the well-established World Conferences on Research Integrity Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (WCRI) and explore facets of these dimensions that find special relevance in a range of research disciplines.

Het bewaken van de kwaliteit en de geloofwaardigheid van wetenschappelijke beweringen vereist verschillende gereedschappen in verschillende epistemische culturen. Replicatie en replicatiestudies vormen een belangrijk organiserend principe voor communicatie tussen wetenschappers, ten behoeve van wetenschappelijke geloofwaardigheid. Daar staat tegenover dat dit niet binnen elke epistemische cultuur geldt, en dat er alternatieve manieren zijn om communicatie met hetzelfde doel te organiseren.

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers’ behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers’ interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

This paper critically engages with dynamics of the Chinese food safety governance infrastructure following the melamine crisis. It presents a qualitative analysis of sixteen in-depth stakeholder interviews in Hunan, Hubei and Henan. We reveal tensions between a segmented model of governance and a centralised model, between a centralised top-down model and stakeholder participation, and between a public model and a private, decentral market where corporate reputation must result in transparency and trust. Stakeholders also see gaps between ideals of inclusive, transparent and participatory governance, and effective problem-solving. Governance of food safety in China, even when targeting inclusion and public accountability, remains heavily dependent on the central state as a pivotal actor.

Incessant food safety scandals in China have given rise to a loss of public trust in food safety, stimulating a series of studies focussing on food safety governance, accountability, and trust restoration. Against this backdrop, Chinese scholars are keen to reflect on different strategies for ensuring food safety public accountability and credibility, presenting different perspectives on issues like responsibility, trust, risk communication, and transparency. In this paper, we aim to get more in-depth insight into how Chinese scholarly debates co-construct public accountability for food safety as a public issue. We selected 51 articles from 10,790 candidates drawn from four Chinese academic databases for content analysis. Drawing from political theories on public accountability as well as science and technology studies, the analysis shows that arguments for a specific public accountability model (more or less centralised, more or less stakeholder participation) are intertwined with the specific role of scientific expertise (more or less authoritative, more or less democratising). As such, the analysis shows how scholarly debates on public accountability for food safety in China co-construct a public forum for discussing supervision and accountability, risk assessment, and transparency.

The distribution of credit, resources and opportunities in science is heavily skewed due to unjust practices and incentives, hardwired into science's rules, guidelines and conventions. A form of resistance widely available is to break those rules. We review instances of rule-breaking in scientific authorship to allow for a redefinition of the concept of civil disobedience in the context of academic research, as well as the conditions on which the label applies. We show that, in contrast to whistleblowing or conscientious objection, civil disobedience targets science's injustice on a more systemic level. Its further development will ease critical evaluation of deviant actions as well as helping us evaluate deviance, defiance and discontent in science beyond issues of authorship. However, empirically, civil disobedience in science engenders uncertainties and disagreements on the local status of both act and label.

Here, we argue that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are different epistemic objects as compared to other biomarkers such as blood pressure or sodium level. While the latter two may be subject to variation, measured inaccurately or interpreted in various ways, blood flow has a pressure and sodium is available in a concentration that can be quantified and visualised. In stark contrast, PRSs are calculated, compiled or constructed through the statistical assemblage of genetic variants. How researchers frame and name PRSs has consequences for how we interpret and value their results. We distinguish between the tangible and inferential understanding of PRS and the corresponding languages of measurement and computation, respectively. The conflation of these frames obscures important questions we need to ask: what PRS seeks to represent, whether current ways of ‘doing PRS’ are optimal and responsible, and upon what we base the credibility of PRS-based knowledge claims.

In this paper, we study which health conceptualisations are promoted or supported by intermittent fasting, no-carb-no-sugar, and endomorph Diet YouTubers and how they relate to existing definitions of health. In order to openly understand how YouTubers present health concepts, we will study health conceptualisations in YouTube diet videos qualitatively, through the use of thematic analysis. We identify five main themes: weight management, prior dietary awareness, diet literacy, quality of life, and the satisfaction of functional needs. We find that YouTubers substitute the WHO’s pursuit of a complete state of well-being by an implicit, tacit version of new health concepts. The tacit form allows them to stay practical and to focus on real-world dietary concerns, such as answers to the simple question “what should I eat to stay healthy?”. Diet YouTubers do not, however, neatly position themselves within existing health conceptualisations and they offer views on health that move beyond “formal” conceptualisations, including self-inspection, timing, preparation and planning and context-design. Differing from the universal definitions of health, the Diet YouTubers we studied target specific audiences with their presentations of healthy eating.

Highlights • A novel semantic analysis offers insight into the diversity of scientific publications. • Synthesis center publications are more topically diverse than others. • Article diversity is strongly and negatively related to a paper's visibility (measured using citations)., Synthesis centers are a form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Synthesis working groups are a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that produce consequential, high-impact publications. But no one has asked if synthesis working groups synthesize: are their publications substantially more diverse than others, and if so, in what ways and with what effect? We investigate these questions by using Latent Dirichlet Analysis to compare the topical diversity of papers published by synthesis center collaborations with that of papers in a reference corpus. Topical diversity was operationalized and measured in several ways, both to reflect aggregate diversity and to emphasize particular aspects of diversity (such as variety, evenness, and balance). Synthesis center publications have greater topical variety and evenness, but less disparity, than do papers in the reference corpus. The influence of synthesis center origins on aspects of diversity is only partly mediated by the size and heterogeneity of collaborations: when taking into account the numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references, synthesis center origins retain a significant direct effect on diversity measures. Controlling for the size and heterogeneity of collaborative groups, synthesis center origins and diversity measures significantly influence the visibility of publications, as indicated by citation measures. We conclude by suggesting social processes within collaborations that might account for the observed effects, by inviting further exploration of what this novel textual analysis approach might reveal about interdisciplinary research, and by offering some practical implications of our results.

Here, we argue that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are different epistemic objects as compared to other biomarkers such as blood pressure or sodium level. While the latter two may be subject to variation, measured inaccurately or interpreted in various ways, blood flow has pressure and sodium is available in a concentration that can be quantified and visualised. In stark contrast, PRSs are calculated, compiled or constructed through the statistical assemblage of genetic variants. How researchers frame and name PRSs has consequences for how we interpret and value their results. We distinguish between the tangible and inferential understanding of PRS and the corresponding languages of measurement and computation, respectively. The conflation of these frames obscures important questions we need to ask: what PRS seeks to represent, whether current ways of 'doing PRS' are optimal and responsible, and upon what we base the credibility of PRS-based knowledge claims.

No formal investigations have been conducted into the efficacy or potential influence of reviewer recommendations on editorial decisions, and the impact of this on the expectations and behaviour of authors, reviewers and journal editors. This article addresses key questions about this critical aspect of the peer review submission process. We suggest several future steps which could be taken towards improving the review process and make it more transparent, better understood, and fairer for all parties.

The reward infrastructure in science centres on publication, in which journal editors play a key role. Reward distribution hinges on value assessments performed by editors, who draw from plural value systems to judge manuscripts. This conceptual paper examines the numerous biases and other factors that affect editorial decisions. Hybrid and often conflicting value systems contribute to an infrastructure in which editors manage reward through editorial review, commissioned commentaries and reviews and weighing of peer review judgments. Taken together, these systems and processes push the editor into a role resembling censorship. Editors and authors both experience this phenomenon as an unintended side-effect of the reward infrastructure in science. To work towards a more constructive editor-author relationship, we propose a conversation, an exchange between editor and author in which value is collectively assessed (or constructed) as obligatory passage points in the publishing process are traversed. This paper contributes to the discourse on editorial practices by problematising editorial paradigms in a new way and suggesting solutions to entrenched problems.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to critically engage with societal origins of public (dis)trust and public credibility of nutrition science and offer suggestions for addressing its public dismissal.Design/methodology/approachThis viewpoint presents a conceptual analysis of public dismissal of nutrition science, drawing together perspectives on the relationships between science and society from the history, sociology and philosophy of science.FindingsThe origin of trust amongst scientists relies is actively tied to their social and moral status and science as a cultural activity is inextricably linked to institutions of power. Accordingly, trust in science relies heavily on public perceptions of those institutions, the ways in which citizens feel represented by them, and to what extent citizens consider these institutions to be held accountable. Ignoring this origin leads to expectations of science and scientists they cannot live up to and inevitable disappointment in those holding such expectations.Social implicationsManaging responsible expectations asks that we first dismiss dominant portrayals of science as pure, neutral, value-free and fuelled by curiosity. Second, we should pursue a reorganisation of science, favouring social inclusiveness over scientific exceptionalism.Originality/valuePost-truth dynamics are a source of concern in the dissemination of nutrition science. Rather than dismissing it as a consequence of public ignorance, a comprehensive engagement with post-truth arguments allows a constructive repositioning of nutrition science organisation and communication. It asks that we design research programmes and studies differently, incorporate different voices. Above all else, it asks humility of researchers and tolerant approaches to other perspectives.

Academic misconduct distorts the relationship between scientific practice and the knowledge it produces. The relationship between science and the knowledge it produces is, however, not something universally agreed upon. In this paper I will critically discuss the moral status of an act of research misconduct, namely plagiarism, in the context of different epistemological positions. While from a positivist view of science, plagiarism only influences trust in science but not the content of the scientific corpus, from a constructivist point of view both are at stake. Consequently, I argue that discussions of research misconduct and responsible research ought to be explicitly informed by the authors' views on the relationship between science and the knowledge it produces.

US President Donald Trump has quickly become a major source of concerns and annoyance among scientists since he took office last year. His various actions and announcements—from barring scientists from various Muslim countries from entering the USA to his proposed budget cuts for research to his personnel decisions for federal agencies—have prompted scientists to take it to the streets in unprecedented numbers. From Washington DC to Busan, South Korea and from Sydney, Australia to Berlin, Germany, between 300,000 and 500,000 participants at the March of Science shouted slogans and placated posters on Earth Day, April 22 (Fig 1). While President Trump's rhetoric and policies provided the stimulus, a general feeling that science has become irrelevant in politics, whether in the heat of political campaigns, or in the day‐to‐day governing of a country, further fuelled and supported scientists’ engagement. Figure 1. March for Science in Washington, DC, USA, 22 April 2017 Image by Paul Becker, Grove City, OH, USA, under the terms of a CC‐BY license. The content of the article does not necessarily represent the photographer's opinion. > The Trump administration has not just regarded science as merely inconvenient but taken an openly hostile attitude to research that does not fit into its political agenda. Yet, Trump is not the first US president to draw the ire of scientists. US President George W. Bush was perceived as the anti‐science president given his scepticism of climate change, his tolerance for teaching intelligent design in school and his general disdain for scientific advice: science was “an annoying inconvenience to its political agenda; an inconvenience that needed to be ignored, suppressed or even manipulated for political purposes” [1]. Throughout both of President Bush's terms, scientists argued and voiced their concerns. However, none of those protests and arguments ever rose to the scale of the March for Science on April 22. The Trump administration has …

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

Ideally, guidelines reflect an accepted position with respect to matters of concern, ranging from clinical practices to researcher behaviour. Upon close reading, authorship guidelines reserve authorship attribution to individuals fully or almost fully embedded in particular studies, including design or execution as well as significant involvement in the writing process. These requirements prescribe an organisation of scientific work in which this embedding is specifically enabled. Drawing from interviews with nutrition scientists at universities and in the food industry, we demonstrate that the organisation of research labour can deviate significantly from such prescriptions. The organisation of labour, regardless of its content, then, has consequences for who qualifies as an author. The fact that fewer food industry employees qualify is actively used by the food industry to manage the credibility and ownership of their knowledge claims as allonymous science: the attribution of science assisted by authorship guidelines blind to all but one organisational frame.

The increasing pursuit of replicable research and actual replication of research is a political project that articulates a very specific technology of accountability for science. This project was initiated in response to concerns about the openness and trustworthiness of science. Though applicable and valuable in many fields, here we argue that this value cannot be extended everywhere, since the epistemic content of fields, as well as their accountability infrastructures, differ. Furthermore, we argue that there are limits to replicability across all fields, but in some fields, including parts of the humanities, these limits severely undermine the value of replication to account for the value of research.

Confronted with a credible and potent rival, Claire Underwood reassures her husband that they will prevail: “We are willing to go one step further than everyone else” (S04E07). Stars of the Netflix...

This article investigates the ways in which food author Verburgh has attempted to engineer credibility for himself, his book The Food Hourglass, and the arguments it contains. Through a careful reading and analysis of the text, interviews with the author, and other “credibility conquest” participants, we show that Verburgh engineers credibility through enlisting the authority of science, questioning the integrity of others, and positioning himself as a dissident. This initiates a constant renegotiation of credibility in the interaction between Verburgh, nutrition scientists, and others, in which Verburgh actively constructs his public credibility at the expense of scientific credibility.

Synthesis centers are a recently-developed form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports a form of interdisciplinary research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales, scientific phenomena, and forms of expertise to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Research has shown the synthesis working group to be a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that reliably produces consequential, high-impact publications, but no one has asked: do synthesis working groups produce publications that are substantially more diverse than those produced outside of synthesis centers, and if so, how and with what effects? We have investigated these questions through a novel textual analysis. We found that if diversity is measured solely by mean difference in the Rao-Stirling (aggregate) measure of diversity, then the answer is no. But synthesis center papers have significantly greater variety and balance, but significantly lower disparity, than papers in the reference corpus. Synthesis center influence is mediated by the greater size of synthesis center collaborations (numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references) but even when taking size into account, there is a persistent direct effect: synthesis center papers have significantly greater variety and balance, but less disparity, than papers in the reference corpus. We conclude by inviting further exploration of what this novel textual analysis approach might reveal about interdisciplinary research and by offering some practical implications of our results.

Irreplicability is framed as crisis, blamed on sloppy science motivated by perverse stimuli in research. Structural changes to the organization of science, targeting sloppy science (e.g., open data, pre-registration), are proposed to prevent irreplicability. While there is an unquestionable link between sloppy science and failures to replicate/reproduce scientific studies, they are currently conflated. This position can be understood as a result of the erosion of the role of theory in science. The history, sociology, and philosophy of science reveal alternative explanations for irreplicability to show it is part of proper, informative and valuable science. Irreplicability need not equate research waste. Sloppy science is the problem, also when results do replicate. Hence, the solution should focus on opposing sloppy research.

Nutrigenomics diverged from mainstream nutrition science, ideologically, instrumentally and culturally, due to the establishment of a protective niche. That protection is fading. This article chronicles a case in which convergence between nutrigenomics and nutrition science is pursued. Here we report the opportunities and hurdles that researchers within two large Dutch research consortia encountered when trying to engineer collaboration. The most salient hurdles are the complexity of and unfamiliarity with nutrigenomics, unclear and unshared notions of relevance; difficulties in organising data exchange; and the existence of two research cultures. Overcoming these technical and social hurdles will require the development of a shared 'future' for the relationship between nutrigenomics and nutrition science. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

This article studies the construction of children at risk in the introduction process of a novel ICT system in Dutch child welfare, the Child Index. This early warning electronic information system enables early reporting of children at risk to stimulate multidisciplinary collaboration among the different professionals involved with a particular child. We followed the introduction of the Child Index in practice. Our empirical analysis provides insight into the co-production of this ICT system and risk in child welfare practices. The analysis shows that the interaction between local and national, and disciplinary and organisational differences induces various constructions of risk, making the decision to signal and the act of signalling risk complex and the status of a signalled risk vague. Moreover, the analysis illustrates that the Child Index's goal of early signals for all children at risk does not fit professionals' daily practices and highlights the need to discuss whether the risk signalling ambitions of the Child Index are not a larger risk to children than the risks that are being targeted. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The passionate pursuit of authorships is fuelled by the value they represent to scholars and scientists. This article asks how this value differs across scientists and how these different processes of valuation inform authorship articulation, strategies, and publication behavior in general. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of authorship practices among nutrition scientists employed at universities, contract research organizations, and in food industry, I argue that two different modi operandi emerge when it comes to authorship. These different ways of working produce different collaborative approaches, different credit distribution strategies amongst collaborators, and different value placed upon (the pursuit of) authorship. These different valuation processes are neither explicit nor recognizable to those reading (and judging) author lists. As a consequence, in the politics of authorship, the names standing atop a scientific publication in nutrition science represent different types of value to both the individuals and employing organizations.

Nutrition science has enriched our understanding of how to stay healthy by producing valuable knowledge about the interaction of nutrients, food, and the human body. Nutrition science also has raised societal awareness about the links between food consumption and well-being, and provided the basis for food regulations and dietary guidelines. Its collaborative and interdisciplinary research has accomplished much, scientifically and socially. Despite this, nutrition science appears to be in crisis and is currently confronted with a public reluctance to trust nutritional insights. Though deflating trust is a general phenomenon surrounding the scientific community, its impact on nutrition science is particularly strong because of the crucial role of nutrition in everyone's daily life. We, a Dutch collective of nutritionists, medical doctors, philosophers and sociologists of science (http://www.nutritionintransition.nl), have diagnosed that nutrition science is meeting inherent boundaries. This hampers conceptual and methodological progress and the translation of novel insights into societal benefit and trust. In other words, nutrition science is facing limitations to its capability and credibility, impeding its societal value. We take up the challenge to halt the threatening erosion of nutrition science's capability and credibility, and explore a way forward. We analyse limitations to capability and credibility, then argue that nutrition science is caught in a vicious circle, and end by offering some suggestions to transcend the limitations and escape the current deadlock. We invite nutritional experts as well as scholars from adjacent disciplines to engage in the discussion.

Despite the well-developed Chinese National Immunization Program, vaccine hesitancy in China is rising. As part of the response, Chinese scholars have studied determinants and proposed solutions to vaccination hesitancy. We performed a scoping review of Chinese literature (2007–2019), drawn from four Chinese databases. We mapped relevant information and presented a systemic account of the proposed determinants and responses to vaccine hesitancy in China. We identified 77 relevant studies that reveal four approaches to vaccine hesitancy. Most Chinese studies define vaccine hesitancy as a problem of vaccine safety and vaccine incident response and place accountability on the level of governance, such as regulation deficits and inappropriate crisis management. A first minority of studies tied vaccination hesitancy to unprofessional medical conduct and called for additional resources and enhanced physician qualifications. A second minority of studies positioned vaccination hesitancy as a problem of parental belief and pointed to the role of media, proposing enhanced communication and education. Chinese literature ties vaccine hesitancy primarily to vaccine safety and medical conduct. Compared to international research, parental concerns are underrepresented. The Chinese context of vaccination scandals notably frames the discussion of vaccination hesitancy and potential solutions, which stresses the importance of considering vaccination hesitancy in specific social and political contexts.

Evaluations of authorship and recommendations for authorship policies best heed the plurality of valuation cultures that traverse scientific practices and respect the messiness of scientific practices, for those are reflected in authorship and authorship sequence decisions.

Healthy eating is a prominent concern amongst public health and diet professionals. Public understanding of healthy eating presents a topic of interest in understanding scientific credibility in the public domain. Three prominent Dutch nutrition scientists, Kok, Seidell and Katan, have produced popular science books on healthy eating, aiming to remove myths about food and nutrition from the public domain. I describe how they do so, and which strategies they have chosen to achieve this goal. In their books, they move beyond traditional academic strategies to build credibility and devise credibilising strategies resembling those of diet authors. While doing so, they move beyond the deficit model, but end up competing for dietary credibility on the diet authors’ terms.