EDITORIAL

Research integrity revisited

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  14 Apr 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6334, pp. 115
DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3552

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Research integrity revisited
    • David Gurwitz, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Publishers have far more power than academia for enhancing research integrity. Simple steps by publishers could include:
    1. Requiring authors to include, as supplementary (online only) files, raw data for the findings presented in the manuscript Figures and Tables.
    2. Allowing readers to comment on manuscripts post-publication.
    The benefit of the former step is self-evident. It will allow others to check data for accuracy and for use of the correct statistics tools (for example, those only allowed for normal distribution). This will not affect publishers operating costs.

    Applying the latter step is more tricky, as publishers will need to screen and supervise the readers comments. Costs for this feature can be reduced by allowing readers to report inappropriate comments, similarly to social networks.

    Applying such simple tools will improve research integrity, and assist academia in its oversight. I urge publishers to incorporate these tools.

    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science

Navigate This Article