Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T19:02:25.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proxy failure in academia: More than just another example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2024

Milind Watve Open the ORCID record for Milind Watve [Opens in a new window]
Milind Watve*
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, Pune, India https://milindwatve.in/
*
Corresponding author: Milind Watve; Email: milind.watve@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proxy failure in academia has progressed much ahead of what John et al. describe. We see advanced phenomena such as proxy complimentarity in which different players push each others' proxy failures; proxy exploitation in which external agents exploit players' proxies and predatory proxies that devour the goal itself. Academics need to avoid proxy failures by designing behaviorally sound systems.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e87
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, A. (2023). Strife at eLife: Inside a journal's quest to upend science publishing. Nature, 615(7954), 780–781. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00831-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ACCORD Study Group, Gerstein, H. C., Miller, M. E., Byington, R. P., Goff, D. C. Jr., Bigger, J. T., … Friedewald, W. T. (2008). Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358(24), 2545–2559. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0802743Google ScholarPubMed
Castelvecchi, D and Nature magazine. (2015). Is string theory science? Scientific American, December 23, 2015.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., … Chr Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: How authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 286(1916), 20192047. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047Google ScholarPubMed
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, E147. doi:10.1017/S0140525X22002023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chawla, D. S. (2023). Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published. Nature, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01532-wGoogle Scholar
Chu, J. S. G., & Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(41), e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020). Tribalism in war and peace: The nature and evolution of ideological epistemology and its significance for modern social science. Psychological Inquiry, 31(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, F. (2019). Rationalization is rational. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001730CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vrieze, J. (2021). Landmark research integrity survey finds questionable practices are surprisingly common. Science Insider, July 7th, 2021 https://www.science.org/content/article/landmark-research-integrity-survey-finds-questionable-practices-are-surprisingly-commonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diwekar-Joshi, M., & Watve, M. (2020). Driver versus navigator causation in biology: The case of insulin and fasting glucose. PeerJ, 8, e10396. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0187394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hossenfelder, S. (2022). No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless. The Guardian, September 26th, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicistsGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C. G., Heckman-Stoddard, B., Dabelea, D., Gadde, K. M., Ehrmann, D., Ford, L., … Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2021). Effect of metformin and lifestyle interventions on mortality in the diabetes prevention program and diabetes prevention program outcomes study. Diabetes Care, 44(12), 2775–2782. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojha, A., Vidwans, H. & Watve, M. (2022). Does sugar control arrest complications in type 2 diabetes? Examining rigor in statistical and causal inference in clinical trials. Medrxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.02.22278347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rammohan, A., & Rela, M. (2021). Ranking list for scientists: From heightening the rat-race to fraying the scientific temper. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 67(2), 91–92. doi:10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_112_21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, S., & Edwards, M. A. (2023). NSF fellows’ perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia. Science Reports, 13, 5701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32445-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(5), 232–237. doi:10.1177/014107680609900514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephan, P. (2012). Perverse incentives. Nature, 484, 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/484029aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). The ethics of peer and editorial requests for self-citation of their work and journal. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 73(2), 181–183. doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.11.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators. (2009). Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(13), 1283–1297. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triggle, C. R., MacDonald, R., Triggle, D. J., & Grierson, D. (2022). Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges. Accountability in Research, 29(3), 133–164. doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watve, M. (2017). Social behavioural epistemology and scientific publishing. Journal of Genetics, 96, 525–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watve, M. (2023). Behavioral optimization in scientific publishing. Qeios, https://doi.org/10.32388/8W10ND.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27, 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed