Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

sloppy data and peer review

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • sloppy data and peer review

    Dear Colleagues:

    After talking with people on other lists and considering the
    ideas shared by others on this list, I have more questions.
    Start by considering the following thoughts from others on the
    list:


    From: IN%"dluedtke@admin.stkate.edu" "Dave Luedtke"

    Concerning "sloppy data"; it would seem one would need to define
    the minimum acceptable information to be collected when studying
    each topic. If a person collected data using a limited amount of
    equipment and were not able to generate all possible information
    on that topic, some might consider their results as sloppy
    because they did not use the most elaborate equipment available
    and could not due to budget restrictions.

    ************************************************** ***************

    From: IN%"keith@cvs.rochester.edu"

    Thanks Bill for your personal note on scientific misconduct. I
    agree that there is bad work done. But the peer review process
    in grant competition and in publication seems to take care of a
    lot of it. I think we also all know which journals we respect
    more than others (based on the stringency of the review process
    and the quality of what is published). We also are skeptical -
    as all scientist should be - when reading sloppy work, and
    therefore don't cite it. All in all, I think sloppiness is a
    difficult thing to judge. I actually think it is good to have
    journals and researchers to publish in those journals at
    different levels of "sloppiness". By that I mean applied work
    such as that published in "Applied Ergonomics" or clinical case
    studies such as that frequently published in medical journals
    cannot have the same scientific rigor as more basic research
    published less "sloppy" journals by less "Sloppy" scientists.
    But non the less, I think this work at all levels have a use and
    a place.

    On the other hand, I agree that we should prosecute people who
    intentionally attempt to deceive their readers.

    Keith Karn
    keith@cvs.rochester.edu

    ************************************************** ***************

    From: IN%"clark@SALUS.MED.UVM.EDU" "Toni Clark x63851"

    I believe the term "sloppy data" usually means sloppily collected
    data. Thus, unless one were privy to the data collection
    procedures, one wouldn't really know whether the data were
    "sloppy."

    ************************************************** ***************

    I submit the following for your consideration:

    Sloppy data is data collected in a fashion not consistent with
    commonly accepted standards.

    Because sloppy data is a product of methodology, sloppy data is
    unlikely to be identified unless the data collection process is
    observed. The definition revolves around the premise that
    commonly accepted standards of data collection exist.

    I am unaware of the existence of any published commonly accepted
    standards of data collection in the field of biomechanics. The
    text by Dainty and Norman represents a start but I do not believe
    a compendium of accepted standards has been endorsed or
    published. It is unfair to hold persons to unpublished
    standards. The existence of such standards would appear to be
    increasingly important as individuals not necessarily trained as
    biomechanists begin to pursue research which is biomechanical in
    nature. I propose that the profession needs to identify and
    publish standards of biomechanical data collection. How do you
    feel about giving ISB a mandate to produce such a document? How
    would the executive council of ISB respond to such a mandate?

    I do not believe that peer review can succeed as a mechanism for
    identifying science fraud and misconduct. Similarly, I am
    willing to bet that the rare cases of questionable data found in
    the peer review process are the result of ignorance on the part
    of the investigator rather than an intent to "cut corners." If I
    am correct, what does the peer review process really do? How do
    you feel about Kuhn's contention that the peer review process is
    nothing more than a mechanism for reinforcing the existing
    paradigm (normal science)?

    Once again, I encourage you to post your responses to the list at
    large. I miss the immediacy of the discussion format and I am
    anxious to benefit from exchanges by those of you wiser and more
    philosophically evolved than myself.

    Thank you for your time, patience, and thoughts.

    William (Bill) Siler
    silerwl@sluvca.slu.edu
Working...
X