1. Hidden: A Bakers Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einsteins Dictum.
- Author
-
Siddique, Abu, Shaw, Brian, Dwyer, Johanna, Fields, David, Fontaine, Kevin, Hand, David, Schekman, Randy, Alberts, Jeffrey, Locher, Julie, and Allison, David
- Subjects
Epistemology ,Philosophy of science ,Rigor ,reproducibility ,and transparency ,Science communication ,Trustworthiness ,Humans ,Research Design ,Ethics ,Research ,Science ,Writing ,Research Report ,Narration ,Mentors ,Publishing ,Reproducibility of Results ,Research - Abstract
The tutelage of our mentors as scientists included the analogy that writing a good scientific paper was an exercise in storytelling that omitted unessential details that did not move the story forward or that detracted from the overall message. However, the advice to not get lost in the details had an important flaw. In science, it is the many details of the data themselves and the methods used to generate and analyze them that give conclusions their probative meaning. Facts may sometimes slow or distract from the clarity, tidiness, intrigue, or flow of the narrative, but nevertheless they are important for the assessment of what was done, the trustworthiness of the science, and the meaning of the findings. Nevertheless, many critical elements and facts about research studies may be omitted from the narrative and become hidden from scholarly scrutiny. We describe a bakers dozen shortfalls in which such elements that are pertinent to evaluating the validity of scientific studies are sometimes hidden in reports of the work. Such shortfalls may be intentional or unintentional or lie somewhere in between. Additionally, shortfalls may occur at the level of the individual or an institution or of the entire system itself. We conclude by proposing countermeasures to these shortfalls.
- Published
- 2024