Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum.

The tutelage of our mentors as scientists included the analogy that writing a good scientific paper was an exercise in storytelling that omitted unessential details that did not move the story forward or that detracted from the overall message. However, the advice to not get lost in the details had...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 30; no. 6; pp. 1 - 25
Main Authors: Siddique, Abu Bakkar, Shaw, Brian, Dwyer, Johanna, Fields, David A., Fontaine, Kevin, Hand, David, Schekman, Randy, Alberts, Jeffrey, Locher, Julie, Allison, David B.
Format: Article
Published: Springer Nature Dec2024
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=180331299&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 180331299
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        13533452
        GNI
      jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics
      issn: 13533452
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2024
      vid: 30
      iid: 6
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        180331299
        10.1007/s11948-024-00517-w
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 24
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 1.1MB
      tig:
        atl: Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum.
      aug:
        au:
          Siddique, Abu Bakkar
          Shaw, Brian
          Dwyer, Johanna
          Fields, David A.
          Fontaine, Kevin
          Hand, David
          Schekman, Randy
          Alberts, Jeffrey
          Locher, Julie
          Allison, David B.
        affil:
          https://ror.org/05p8w6387 School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
          https://ror.org/02k40bc56 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, 1025 E 7 St, PH 111, 47405, Bloomington, IN, USA
          School of Medicine, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA
          Department of Pediatrics, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
          Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
          https://ror.org/041kmwe10 Department of Mathematics, Imperial College, London, UK
          Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
          https://ror.org/02k40bc56 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
          https://ror.org/008s83205 Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
      su:
        Trust
        Scientific communication
        Philosophy of science
        Technical writing
        Theory of knowledge
        Digital storytelling
      sug:
        subj:
          Trust
          Scientific communication
          Philosophy of science
          Technical writing
          Theory of knowledge
          Digital storytelling
      keyword:
        Epistemology
        Rigor, reproducibility, and transparency
        Science communication
        Trustworthiness
      ab: The tutelage of our mentors as scientists included the analogy that writing a good scientific paper was an exercise in storytelling that omitted unessential details that did not move the story forward or that detracted from the overall message. However, the advice to not get lost in the details had an important flaw. In science, it is the many details of the data themselves and the methods used to generate and analyze them that give conclusions their probative meaning. Facts may sometimes slow or distract from the clarity, tidiness, intrigue, or flow of the narrative, but nevertheless they are important for the assessment of what was done, the trustworthiness of the science, and the meaning of the findings. Nevertheless, many critical elements and facts about research studies may be omitted from the narrative and become hidden from scholarly scrutiny. We describe a "baker's dozen" shortfalls in which such elements that are pertinent to evaluating the validity of scientific studies are sometimes hidden in reports of the work. Such shortfalls may be intentional or unintentional or lie somewhere in between. Additionally, shortfalls may occur at the level of the individual or an institution or of the entire system itself. We conclude by proposing countermeasures to these shortfalls.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2024. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Science & Engineering Ethics
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N