Stricter standards alone might not be the answer. Eric Prager, PhD, and his colleagues argued in 2019 (Brain Behav. 2019;9:e01141) that compliance isn’t guaranteed—even with the most rigorous reporting guidelines and publication standards that include the precise application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the results.
Explore This Issue
June 2022As we explore possible solutions, I believe that education and awareness of the critical elements in research design and analysis are essential to transparent and reproducible research. It’s also important to raise awareness of the available tools. For instance, NIH designs modules to train students or retrain scientists on the responsible conduct of research. We need to remind our scientists about the experimental design and how to employ correct data visualization techniques through training and education modules.
Technological tools can play a key role as well. We need more pre-screeners, but artificial intelligence can also detect signs of image manipulation from accepted manuscripts.
In sum, I don’t believe there’s one magic bullet. However, we can build a plan to significantly reduce scientific misconduct, including image manipulations. If our research community can adopt a multifaceted approach focused on prevention, awareness, and education today, we can start to see real results in the future.
Dr. Cho is an associate professor and the director of the Smell and Taste Clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine.