Protean Uses of Trust: A Curious Case of Science Hoaxes

• Authors: Sabina Siebert , Stephanie Schreven

Title variants

Różne aspekty zaufania: dziwny przypadek mistyfikacji naukowych

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article explores an intervention that practises the ‘art of deception’ in the context of biomedical publishing. Specifically, we explore the science hoax aimed at revealing problems in the peer review process. We pose a question – are science hoaxes based on deception ever justified? Drawing on interviews with biomedical scientists in the UK, we identify the issue of trust as the key element in the scientists’ evaluations of hoaxes. Hoaxes are seen by some to increase trust, and are seen by others to damage trust. Trust in science is thus a Protean concept: it can be used to argue for two completely different, and sometimes contradictory, positions. In this case, the same argument of trust was recognizably invoked to defend the hoaxes, and to argue against them.

PL

Niniejszy artykuł opisuje projekt, w którym skorzystano ze „sztuki oszustwa” w kontekście publikacji biomedycznych. Badamy mistyfikację naukową mającą na celu ujawnienie problemów w procesie recenzji. Stawiamy pytanie: czy mistyfikacje naukowe oparte na podstępach mogą być uzasadnione? Korzystając z wywiadów z brytyjskimi naukowcami z dziedzin biomedycznych, zidentyfikowaliśmy zagadnienie zaufania jako kluczowy element w ocenie mistyfikacji przez naukowców. Mistyfikacje postrzegane są przez jednych jako zwiększające zaufanie, a przez innych jako je naruszające. A zatem zaufanie jest w nauce koncepcją zmienną: można je wykorzystać do obrony dwóch zupełnie różnych, a czasem nawet przeciwnych stanowisk. W tym przypadku argument zaufania został wykorzystany do obrony mistyfikacji i do wysunięcia argumentów przeciwko nim.

Keywords

EN

peer review; science hoax; trust in science

PL

proces recenzji; mistyfikacja naukowa; zaufanie do nauki; proces recenzji; mistyfikacja naukowa; zaufanie do nauki

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Nauki o Wychowaniu. Studia Interdyscyplinarne
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 216-230

Dates

published

2019-12-30

Contributors

author

Sabina Siebert

• Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9094-271X

author

Stephanie Schreven

• University of Dundee

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5762-0540

References

• Baringer P. S. (2001) Introduction: The “science wars” in: After the science wars: science and the study of science, K. Ashman & P. S. Baringer (eds.), New York, Routledge: 1–13.
• Beall J. (2015) Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures, “Information Development”, 31 (5): 473–476.
• Bohannon J. (2013) Who is afraid of peer review? “Science”, 342 (6154): 60–65, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
• Broad W. & Wade N. (1982) Betrayers of the truth, London, Century Publishing.
• Brown J. R. (2001) Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Collins H., Evans R. and Weinel M. (2017) STS as science or politics?, “Social Studies of Science”, 40 (2): 307–340.
• Faulkes Z. (2017) Stinging the predators: a collection of papers that should never have been published, https://figshare.com/articles/Stinging_the_Predators_A_collection_of_papers_that_should_never_have_been_published/5248264
• Eisen M. (2011) Peer review is f***ed up-let’s fix it, http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=694
• Fyfe A. (2015) Peer review not as old as you might think, Times Higher Education, June 25, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think
• Gabriel Y. (2004) The narrative veil: truth and untruths in storytelling in: Myth, stories and organizations. Premodern narratives for our times, Y. Gabriel (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 17–31.
• Godlee F., Gale C. R., Martyn C. N. (1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial, “Journal of American Medical Associations”, 280: 237–240.
• Goffman E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin.
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer review in scientific publications, London, The Stationery Office Limited, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf
• Ioannidis J. P. A. (2011) More time for research: Fund people not projects, “Nature”, 477: 529–531.
• Jonsen A. and Toulmin S. (1988) The Abuse of Casuistry, Berkeley, California, California University Press.
• Kitcher P. (2001) Science, Truth, and Democracy, New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Lamont M. (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgement, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
• Lee C. J., Sugimoto C. R., Zhang G., Cronin B. (2013) Bias in peer review, “Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology”, 64 (1): 2–17.
• Longino H. (2002) Science & the common good: thoughts Philip Kitcher’s Science, Truth & Democracy, “Philosophy of Science”, 59: 560–568.
• Miles M. B. and Huberman A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, London, Sage.
• Miller C. (2006) Peer review in the organization and management sciences; Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus “Academy of Management Journal”, 49 (3): 425–431.
• Shepherd J. (2009) Editor quits after journal accepts bogus science article, “The Guardian”, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article
• Siebert S., Machesky L. and Insall R. (2015) ‘Overflow in science and its implications for trust’, “eLife” 4: e10825.
• Smith R. (1988) Problems with peer review and alternatives, “British Medical Journal”, 298: 774–777.
• Smith R. (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, “Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine”, 99 (4): 178–182.
• Sokal A. (1996) A physicist experiments with Cultural Studies, “Lingua Franca”, May/June.
• Sorokowski P., Kulczycki E., Sorokowska A., and Pisanski K. (2017) Predatory journals recruit a fake editor, “Nature”, Mar 22; 543 (7646): 481–483. doi: 10.1038/543481a.
• Südhof T. C. (2016) Truth in Science publishing: A personal perspective, “PLOS Biology”, http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002547
• Stolzenberg G. (2004) Kinder, Gentler Science Wars, “Social Studies of Science”, 34 (1): 115–132.
• Stone R. & Jasny B. (2013) Scientific discourse, Buckling at the seams. Introduction to Special Issue. Communication in Science: Pressures & Predators, “Science”, 342 (6154), 56–57, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/56
• Toulmin S. (2001) Return to Reason, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard UP.
• Turner S. (2003) Third science war, “Social Studies of Science”, 33, 4: 581–611.
• Vinck D. (2010) The sociology of scientific work. The fundamental relationship between Science and Society, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
• Walsh L. (2006) Sins against science: The scientific media hoaxes of Poe, Twain, and others, Albany, State University of New York Press.
• Ware M. (2013) Peer Review: An Introduction and Guide, Publishing Research Consortium, http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-guides-main-menu/155-peer-review-an-introduction-and-guide
• Wellcome Trust (2015) Scholarly Communication and Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends, https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/scholarly-communication-and-peer-review-mar15.pdf

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/2450-4491.09.15