Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Sting operations in biomedical publishing violate truthfulness and undermine trust in research

dc.rights.licenseopenen_US
dc.contributor.authorTEIXEIRA DA SILVA, Jaime A
dc.contributor.authorTURP, Jens C
hal.structure.identifierBordeaux population health [BPH]
dc.contributor.authorDALY, Timothy
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-15T14:24:35Z
dc.date.available2025-04-15T14:24:35Z
dc.date.issued2025-01-01
dc.identifier.issn1473-4877en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://oskar-bordeaux.fr/handle/20.500.12278/206213
dc.description.abstractEnBiomedical research cannot function without the trust of peers and society. The truthfulness of claims made by knowledge-producing agents, such as authors of research, is a prerequisite for their trustworthiness, and violations of truthfulness are rightly seen as a threat to the existence and validity of such research. While most reflection on the lack of truthfulness has focused on fake research, little attention has been paid to how sting operations and hoaxes arguably pose an equally great risk to the ethical integrity of publishing. This paper posits that sting operations, like fake research, are examples of breaches of truthfulness. We also argue that for both fake research, as well as stings and hoaxes, the lack of respect for the ethical criterion of truthfulness makes those researchers who engage in them untrustworthy. Sting operations are akin to fighting fire with fire, further undermining trust in biomedical research. From a deontological perspective, we also argue that the reliance on anonymity in sting operations makes them just as bad, if not worse, than fake research. We advocate for critical scholarship as an alternative to hoaxes and sting operations to expose fake research, in order to promote truthfulness rather than violate it. Finally, we argue that journalists reporting on sting operations should insist less on their entertainment and sensationalist value, and focus more on their unethical nature.
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.subject.enBiomedical Research
dc.subject.enDeontology
dc.subject.enEditorial Screening And Standards
dc.subject.enEthics
dc.subject.enHoax
dc.subject.enMorality
dc.subject.enScience Journalism
dc.subject.enTransparency
dc.subject.enTrustworthiness
dc.subject.enTruthfulness
dc.title.enSting operations in biomedical publishing violate truthfulness and undermine trust in research
dc.title.alternativeCurr Med Res Opinen_US
dc.typeArticle de revueen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/03007995.2024.2441340en_US
dc.subject.halSciences du Vivant [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologieen_US
dc.identifier.pubmed39668777en_US
bordeaux.journalCurrent Medical Research and Opinionen_US
bordeaux.page155-162en_US
bordeaux.volume41en_US
bordeaux.hal.laboratoriesBordeaux Population Health Research Center (BPH) - UMR 1219en_US
bordeaux.issue1en_US
bordeaux.institutionUniversité de Bordeauxen_US
bordeaux.institutionINSERMen_US
bordeaux.teamPHARES_BPHen_US
bordeaux.peerReviewedouien_US
bordeaux.inpressnonen_US
hal.identifierhal-05035413
hal.version1
hal.date.transferred2025-04-15T14:24:38Z
hal.popularnonen_US
hal.audienceInternationaleen_US
hal.exporttrue
dc.rights.ccPas de Licence CCen_US
bordeaux.COinSctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Current%20Medical%20Research%20and%20Opinion&rft.date=2025-01-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=155-162&rft.epage=155-162&rft.eissn=1473-4877&rft.issn=1473-4877&rft.au=TEIXEIRA%20DA%20SILVA,%20Jaime%20A&TURP,%20Jens%20C&DALY,%20Timothy&rft.genre=article


Archivos en el ítem

ArchivosTamañoFormatoVer

No hay archivos asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem