Scientific Accountability: The Case for Personal Responsibility in Academic Error Correction - Article (Preprint v1) by Yue Liu | Qeios

https://www.qeios.com/read/M4GGKZ

Scientific Accountability: The Case for Personal Responsibility in Academic Error Correction

主要观点摘录：

“Drawing on Richard Feynman's concept of scientific integrity and empirical evidence from research misconduct studies, we propose that personal accountability is not only compatible with scientific progress but essential for maintaining scientific integrity. Our analysis reveals how true scientific accountability requires researchers to take personal responsibility for their claims while distinguishing this from personal attacks or character assassination.”

‘

The contemporary scientific community has widely adopted the principle of "addressing the issue but not the person" when correcting scientific errors. This approach, while ostensibly promoting objectivity and civility, has created what we argue is a fundamentally asymmetrical system of accountability that undermines the very foundations of scientific integrity. When scientists are correct and receive recognition, both their work and their persons benefit; however, when errors are discovered, the prevailing norm demands that only the work be criticized while the individual remains shielded from personal responsibility

’

“

This asymmetry has profound consequences for the scientific enterprise. Research indicates that the current system of error correction is inadequate, with many journals reluctant to publish corrections and institutional mechanisms often failing to ensure accountability. The reluctance to directly address personal responsibility in scientific misconduct has contributed to a culture where errors persist, misleading conclusions remain uncorrected, and public trust in science is undermined.

”

The prevailing "issue-only" approach to error correction represents a fundamental inequality in how scientific accountability operates. When research succeeds and generates positive outcomes, scientists rightfully receive personal recognition, career advancement, and professional acclaim. Their names become associated with discoveries, theories bear their names, and they benefit personally from their scientific contributions. However, when serious errors emerge, the same individuals who claimed personal credit are suddenly shielded behind the principle that criticism should target only the work, not the person.

Contemporary journal policies exemplify the problems created by avoiding personal accountability. Many prestigious journals, including some in materials science and applied sciences, explicitly prohibit the publication of error correction letters. Research Square refuses to accept preprints focused on error correction, while other platforms create bureaucratic obstacles that discourage error reporting.

The nature of these institutional barriers reflects a deeper cultural problem. When error correction must be couched in diplomatic language that avoids directly challenging the responsible parties, the resulting communications often become so circumspect as to obscure the very problems they purport to address. Scientists must engage in what amounts to academic doublespeak, acknowledging problems while simultaneously affirming the overall validity of flawed work.

The requirement for personal accountability in science stems from the fundamental nature of scientific practice. Unlike fiction writers who may use pseudonyms, scientists publish under their real names, provide institutional affiliations, and include contact information specifically to enable direct communication about their work. This transparency reflects the understanding that scientific claims carry personal responsibility.

The transition from honest error to scientific misconduct often occurs when researchers, faced with evidence of their mistakes, choose to maintain false positions rather than accept responsibility. The current system's emphasis on avoiding personal accountability paradoxically enables this escalation by removing the social and professional incentives for prompt error correction.

Research integrity investigations consistently show that early acknowledgment of errors prevents more serious misconduct charges. When scientists take personal responsibility for mistakes, they typically face minimal professional consequences and often gain respect for their integrity. However, when errors are concealed or defensively maintained, the resulting investigations can destroy careers and institutional reputations.

Studies of research misconduct cases reveal that attempts to diffuse responsibility across institutions or research teams often fail to prevent recurring problems. Personal accountability, when properly implemented, provides the psychological and professional incentives necessary for maintaining scientific standards.

When mainstream theories are challenged by contradictory evidence, a particularly troubling phenomenon emerges: the continued publication of research based on discredited foundations. This occurs despite clear evidence that the underlying theoretical framework has been refuted. The academic community often continues to publish work applying mainstream theories even after they have been scientifically disproven, creating what researchers have termed a "bandwagon effect" in academic publishing.

The social influences and herding behavior documented in scientific research communities mean that researchers may continue following established paths even when evidence suggests those paths lead nowhere. The career pressures facing scientists—including the need for students to graduate, faculty to pass evaluations, and institutions to maintain funding—create powerful incentives to maintain the status quo rather than engage with challenging new evidence.

The principle of "addressing only the issue but not the person" becomes particularly problematic in these circumstances because it enables collective responsibility diffusion. When entire research communities continue publishing work based on discredited theories, individual researchers can justify their actions by arguing that "if everyone is wrong, then I don't need to take personal responsibility". This represents a clear manifestation of the tragedy of the commons in scientific research, where the collective pursuit of individual career advancement undermines the overall integrity of the scientific enterprise.

Research on herding behavior in scientific communities has shown that "when careers depend on research assessment and the number of publications in established journals, the incentives tip towards following the crowd rather than publishing unconventional theories or apparently anomalous findings". This creates a vicious cycle where the very mechanism intended to ensure scientific quality—peer review and publication in established journals—becomes a barrier to scientific progress.

As fraudulent research persists and gains acceptance, the number of stakeholders with vested interests in maintaining the status quo grows exponentially. This phenomenon is clearly illustrated in the heart stem cell research scandal, where the extended timeline of the fraud allowed multiple layers of vested interests to develop.

Supplementary Materials - yueliusd’s Substack

https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/supplementary-materials