Social Dilemmas in Science : Detecting Misconduct and Finding Institutional Solutions

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.
Datum
2017
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Publikationstyp
Beitrag zu einem Sammelband
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
JANN, Ben, ed., Wojtek PRZEPIORKA, ed.. Social dilemmas, institutions, and the evolution of cooperation. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2017, pp. 189-214. ISBN 978-3-11-047195-3. Available under: doi: 10.1515/9783110472974-010
Zusammenfassung

Conditions for scientific fraud can be derived fromrational choice and game theories. Ethical norms andmoral pleas seem insufficient to prevent fraudulent behavior, as these measures can only be effective if deviations are detected and sanctioned. As a first step, effective interventions require the more frequent discovery of scientific misbehavior. To advance knowledge in this direction, we evaluate two different diagnosis tools (Benford’s lawand the caliper test), using a unique database combining 30 articles from authors in social psychology accused of committing scientific fraud, together with a control group of 30 articles published by authors who have not been the subject of suspicion.We employ Benford’s law, a common diagnosis tool for identifying fraud. The caliper test, which has commonly been used to diagnose publication bias but not outright fraud, is also used. Our results suggest that the caliper test might be a promising diagnosis tool, whereas for Benford’s law statistical preconditions are notmet. Prior applicationswithout a control group likely suffered froma too high risk of false positives. Finally, some policy recommendations are discussed.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
300 Sozialwissenschaften, Soziologie
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690AUSPURG, Katrin, Thomas HINZ, 2017. Social Dilemmas in Science : Detecting Misconduct and Finding Institutional Solutions. In: JANN, Ben, ed., Wojtek PRZEPIORKA, ed.. Social dilemmas, institutions, and the evolution of cooperation. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2017, pp. 189-214. ISBN 978-3-11-047195-3. Available under: doi: 10.1515/9783110472974-010
BibTex
@incollection{Auspurg2017-01-11Socia-40276,
  year={2017},
  doi={10.1515/9783110472974-010},
  title={Social Dilemmas in Science : Detecting Misconduct and Finding Institutional Solutions},
  isbn={978-3-11-047195-3},
  publisher={De Gruyter Oldenbourg},
  address={Berlin},
  booktitle={Social dilemmas, institutions, and the evolution of cooperation},
  pages={189--214},
  editor={Jann, Ben and Przepiorka, Wojtek},
  author={Auspurg, Katrin and Hinz, Thomas}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40276">
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34"/>
    <dc:contributor>Hinz, Thomas</dc:contributor>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-10-06T14:07:35Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:title>Social Dilemmas in Science : Detecting Misconduct and Finding Institutional Solutions</dcterms:title>
    <dc:creator>Hinz, Thomas</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Auspurg, Katrin</dc:creator>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-10-06T14:07:35Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:issued>2017-01-11</dcterms:issued>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:contributor>Auspurg, Katrin</dc:contributor>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/40276"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Conditions for scientific fraud can be derived fromrational choice and game theories. Ethical norms andmoral pleas seem insufficient to prevent fraudulent behavior, as these measures can only be effective if deviations are detected and sanctioned. As a first step, effective interventions require the more frequent discovery of scientific misbehavior. To advance knowledge in this direction, we evaluate two different diagnosis tools (Benford’s lawand the caliper test), using a unique database combining 30 articles from authors in social psychology accused of committing scientific fraud, together with a control group of 30 articles published by authors who have not been the subject of suspicion.We employ Benford’s law, a common diagnosis tool for identifying fraud. The caliper test, which has commonly been used to diagnose publication bias but not outright fraud, is also used. Our results suggest that the caliper test might be a promising diagnosis tool, whereas for Benford’s law statistical preconditions are notmet. Prior applicationswithout a control group likely suffered froma too high risk of false positives. Finally, some policy recommendations are discussed.</dcterms:abstract>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen