Egypt is just one of the places in the Arab world where scientific misconduct is tolerated. But the onus is global. What are research institutions waiting for to enforce policies? And what is the international community waiting for to stop the use of populations as guinea pigs?

Mark Lorch: Three and a half centuries after the first science journal was published, post-publication peer review is shaking up the old system

A flawed system for judging research is leading to academic fraud

After a spectacular case of data fraud in the field of social psychology surfaced in The Netherlands in September 2011, the Dutch research community was confronted with a number of questions. Is this an isolated case or is scientific fraud with data more common? Is the scientific method robust enough to uncover the results of misconduct and to withstand the breach of trust that fraud causes? How responsible and reliable are researchers when they collect, process, analyse and report on data? How can we prevent data fraud? Do we need to adapt the codes of conduct for researchers or do we need stricter rules for data management and data sharing?This paper discusses the conclusions and recommendations of two reports that were published recently in consequence of this data fraud. The reports are relevant for scientific integrity and trustworthy treatment of research data. Next, this paper reports on the outcomes of enquiries in data cultures in a number of scientific disciplines. The concluding section of this paper contains a number of examples that show that the approach towards data sharing is improving gradually. The data fraud case can be regarded as a wake-up call.

A compelling argument for peer review BEFORE experiments happen, not after.

"John Bargh provided the data from his original study (Bargh & Shalev, 2012), but demanded that Donnellan and colleagues keep the data confidential and not share it or their re-analyses with anyone. That demand flies in the face of both APA and NIH ethical guidelines."

Followup on the Ahluwalia case. This is a case where smart lab precautions around data didn't stop the fraud, but made detecting it and assigning responsibility after the fact possible.

Two years after questions surfaced about work by former Harvard psychology professor Marc Hauser, an official government report is finally out. It’s not pretty. The findings by the Office of …

I argue that requiring authors to post the raw data supporting their published results has, among many other benefits, that of making fraud much less likely to

"Smeesters could not produce the raw data behind the findings, and told the committee that he cherry-picked the data to produce a statistically significant result."

We have learned that a widely published Japanese anesthesiologist is under investigation by his university over concerns that he engaged in repeated fraud for decades that has tainted roughly 180 a…

The embedded video is a WONDERFUL look into skewed and missing clinical-trial data and why it matters.