Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

We argue that the current context of science does not encourage self-regulation. Through the analysis of a particular case of epistemic corruption in biomedical research, we discuss how to protect science from its own threats

Long abstract:

The system of governance and quality control of science through the peer-review process has turned into a resource of predetermined scarcity for which scholars have to compete, threatening the epistemic integrity of science and leading to the much discussed confidence crisis in science. Inappropriate uses of statistical methodologies and a reward system that has turned journal rankings into criteria of sound science constitute an important part of a problem that is promoting transformations in the disciplinary communities affected.

In this proposal we argue that these processes are also turning into a myth a significant attribute of academic science: its capacity for self-correction. We present a case study about a widely cited article in a top biomedical journal that should not have been published because of its statistical flaws. We also present the reflections generated by the fact that it has not been retracted despite the journal, the authors and their institution were informed of its weaknesses. What is striking in this case is that scientism functioned here as a kind of collective bias that prevented all the actors in charge of safeguarding the epistemic quality of the article from recognizing their mistakes, combined with the desire to obtain attention and social impact.

Although the literature on science and society has oscillated between discussing how to defend science from society and how to defend society from science, probably the time has come to start thinking of developing external regulatory mechanisms to help protect science from its own threats.