Change the Rules<\/h2>\n
As long as researchers\u2019 success depends on the number of papers they publish in reputed\u00a0publications, quantity will prevail over quality. Career pressure can be enormous, and therefore many risk committing academic misconduct, even though the consequences can be serious. Is this desperation what we want for our scientific researchers?<\/p>\n
Make Motivation Count<\/h2>\n
Changing the panorama sounds like a difficult thing to do. What about changing scientists\u2019 expectations? In a society where their work were better recognized, they could focus more on improving their results and analysis methods than on publishing a certain number of papers. Improving the researchers\u2019 own recognition of their work could probably be a good way to prevent the publication of erroneous research papers.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB3aWR0aD0iMSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciPjwvc3ZnPg==\")
<\/a><\/h2>\nAvoid Academic Misconduct<\/h2>\n
The consequences of scientific misconduct\u00a0can be huge. However, plenty of forms of academic misconduct are observed every year in scientific papers\u2014ghostwriting, plagiarism<\/a>, manipulation of data. Plagiarism can be avoided by using plagiarism checker<\/a> tools. Two forms of academic misconduct are especially problematic: fabrication<\/a> and falsification. Fabrication refers to the falsification of data in papers or to the manipulation of research material and processes, while falsification refers to the fact of making up results. As long as these kinds of procedures are not penalized, as they\u00a0deserve, it would be difficult to prevent the publication of erroneous research papers.<\/p>\nImprove Peer Review<\/h2>\n
Sooner or later, every discussion about how to prevent mistakes in scientific papers deals with peer review<\/a>. It is the final control and therefore the last opportunity to check and evaluate a research paper<\/a>. However, a lax consideration of this final step favors the publication of erroneous papers, while the effects of corrupted peer review<\/a> do not help to improve scientific credibility. To ensure accuracy, correction mechanism should be improved and researchers should work to give peer review<\/a> the importance it deserves.<\/p>\nIncrease Responsibility<\/h2>\n
Research institutions, journals, authors, and coauthors obviously have certain\u00a0responsibilities with regard to\u00a0research publications. Is increasing their accountability\u00a0the solution? What about colleagues? Some researchers consider taking matters into their own hands\u00a0if they suspect scientific misconduct from a colleague. There is no doubt that collaboration<\/a>\u00a0and respect are needed to improve research standards and procedures. Researchers should work together and\u00a0prioritize knowledge over economic benefits and prestige.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/M3_inarticle-service-banner_900x270_1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/h2>\nImprove Peer Review<\/h2>\n
Sooner or later, every discussion about how to prevent mistakes in scientific papers deals with peer review<\/a>. It is the final control and therefore the last opportunity to check and evaluate a research paper<\/a>. However, a lax consideration of this final step favors the publication of erroneous papers, while the effects of corrupted peer review<\/a> do not help to improve scientific credibility. To ensure accuracy, correction mechanism should be improved and researchers should work to give peer review<\/a> the importance it deserves.<\/p>\n Research institutions, journals, authors, and coauthors obviously have certain\u00a0responsibilities with regard to\u00a0research publications. Is increasing their accountability\u00a0the solution? What about colleagues? Some researchers consider taking matters into their own hands\u00a0if they suspect scientific misconduct from a colleague. There is no doubt that collaboration<\/a>\u00a0and respect are needed to improve research standards and procedures. Researchers should work together and\u00a0prioritize knowledge over economic benefits and prestige.<\/p>\nIncrease Responsibility<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/uat-wordpress.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"