RT @JJinsing: 👋❗️ ATTN #PRFB fellows AND sponsors! . We've written a letter to send to NSF petitioning for a cost-of-living adjustment that….

RT @OdedRechavi: To complete the revolution - pay the reviewers.

RT @cshperspectives: Massive news: eLife to abolish accept/reject decisions: papers will just be “peer reviewed”. Others can argue about th….

RT @jlsteenwyk: NEW Publication🥳 Molecular #evolution studies often rely on single-copy orthologs (SC-OGs), resulting in large gene familie….

RT @BustonLab: This is a problem: Mental anguish and mistreatment are rampant in marine science

RT @dr_alphalyrae: Curious about compensation in biotech and pharma? This massive spreadsheet of crowdsourced data from r/biotech is a fant….

RT @friel: #Wrasses hope everyone is having a Happy Labridae!.#TeamFish #Holiday

RT @RetractionWatch: “I’d be shocked if we didn’t see such fraud and misconduct and sloppiness, given the way the incentives are. Academia,….

RT @StefanoZucca5: 43% of #researchers experienced bullying/harassment. For 60% of them the perpetrator was their supervisor. Here some e….

In conclusion, scientific fraud is 100% inexcusable but in order to prevent future fraud we need to address the forces that perpetuate it. (8/8).

Finally, to echo others who have brought up this topic: where is the accountability for the senior researchers who signed off on this, and how much blame belongs on an ECR being shuffled into a broken system. (7/8).

Additionally, I find the hero treatment of the accusers problematic. Yes, it’s great that the scientific record is being corrected, however, celebrating that a group of senior researchers spent 5 years accusing a junior researcher of fraud sets a bad precedent. (6/8).

How do we prevent future fraud and years of misdirected research? 1) improve the security of trainees (livable wages, healthcare etc.) 2) better value “smaller” publications by hiring/grant committees. Essential reduce vulnerability and de-incentivize fraud (5/8).

Thus, nobody should be surprised when people in vulnerable positions seeking security make their own luck (scientific fraud). As long as the system remains unchanged we are going to continue to see more fraud by people seeking stability. (4/8).

However, getting one of these secure positions is highly dependent on publishing in “sexy” journals which prioritize novel findings. And honestly having your project be novel enough for a big journal oftentimes boils down to luck. (3/8).

Trainees are forced into extremely vulnerable positions with little to no stability (financial, geographical etc.) and securing a permanent position (TT job) is often seen as the only way to achieve stability. (2/8).

I’ve been a bit annoyed with how people have been discussing the recent scientific fraud findings as just bad actors taking advantage of a just system to advance their careers. Rather I think that we need to address how the academic system promotes/ encourages this. (1/8).

RT @NOAAFish_WCRO: Tomorrow is the First Ever #WorldKrillDay! NOAA Fisheries collects data to help manage the Antarctic krill fishery and h….

RT @PSF: We're hiring a Climate Adaptation Program Manager. If you or someone you know has a Bachelor's Degree in Science or MSc in fisheri….