The Profoundly Unethical Nature of Retraction Watch’s Call for Coercion
American Journal of Information Management
Volume 2, Issue 3, Aguest 2017, Pages: 43-46
Received: Jun. 22, 2017; Accepted: Jul. 24, 2017; Published: Oct. 8, 2017
Views 164      Downloads 24
Author
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Retired / Independent Scientist, Kagawa-ken, Japan
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
On April 6, 2017, Retraction Watch, which is now widely regarded as a self-proclaimed ethical entity that specializes in research fraud and retractions, and whose deeply anti-science rhetoric is heavily funded by US philanthropic organizations, called publicly on the use of coercion in science. Coercion is a blatant act of aggression, psychological and/or physical, that makes the target of that coercion do something forcefully, i.e., against their will. Not only can such actions be perceived to be deeply morally and ethically wrong, they also carry a legal component since public incitement to violence to adopt coercive tactics is equivalent to a call for violence. This is not an altogether unexpected attitude by Retraction Watch, which has, together with its sister science-shaming site, PubPeer – both funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation whose leader, John Arnold, has declared a “war on bad science” – lead this war on science through acts of public shaming. The aggression can take place in an anonymous format, scarring science, destroying families, but advancing the journalistic careers of its founders, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, as well as the social and political ambitions of John Arnold. It can confidently be said that science is under brutal attack, a movement led by Retraction Watch and its axis of allies, and is not in a state of passive or self-reflective reform. Consequently, any act of aggression by this possible anti-science axis must be immediately shunned and called out, to alert the public that an extremely dangerous group has emerged that is posing an existential threat to academia, through the use of unethical and aggressive policies. The greatest immediate threat is the infiltration of these methods, i.e., aggressive mentality and coercive enforcement, into ethical codes and “guidelines”, such as those widely applied by the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which are increasingly being populated by Retraction Watch and LJAF-funded group clauses and rhetoric.
Keywords
Center for Science Integrity Inc., COPE, Ethical Boundaries, Fraud, ICMJE, Threat
To cite this article
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, The Profoundly Unethical Nature of Retraction Watch’s Call for Coercion, American Journal of Information Management. Vol. 2, No. 3, 2017, pp. 43-46. doi: 10.11648/j.infomgmt.20170203.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Coercion
[2]
https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/06/research-parasite-award-data-analysis/
[3]
Cratsley, K. (2015). Nudges and coercion: conceptual, empirical, and normative considerations. Monash Bioethics Review 33 (2-3): 210–218.
[4]
Caspar, E. A.; J. F. Christensen; A. Cleeremans; P. Haggard. (2016). Coercion changes the sense of agency in the human brain. Current Biology 26 (5): 585–592.
[5]
Hem, M. H.; B. Molewijk; R. Pedersen. (2014). Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care. BMC Medical Ethics 15: 82.
[6]
http://mind-trek.com/reports/misc/coercion.htm
[7]
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/1984.pdf
[8]
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine 1 (2): 214–215.
[9]
Al-Khatib, A.; J. A. Teixeira da Silva (2017). What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics (in press) DOI: 10.1007/s 11948-016-9808-8.
[10]
Teixeira da Silva, J. A.; J. Dobránszki (2015). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22 (1): 22–40.
[11]
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 5 (3): 13–15.
[12]
http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/
[13]
https://www.macfound.org/
[14]
http://www.helmsleytrust.org/
[15]
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science
[16]
Saulnier, A.; D. Sivasubramaniam. (2015). Effects of victim presence and coercion in restorative justice: An experimental paradigm. Law and Human Behavior 39 (4): 378–387.
[17]
http://retractionwatch.com/the-center-for-scientific-integrity/
[18]
http://retractionwatch.com/the-center-for-scientific-integrity/board-of-directors/
[19]
https://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2017/mar/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-march-2017-vol-5-issue-3#story-2755
[20]
https://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2017/mar/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-march-2017-vol-5-issue-3#story-2756
[21]
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/
[22]
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/research-integrity/written/48704.html
[23]
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/03/23/agreed-listen-complaint-paper-harassment-began/
[24]
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). The preprint wars. AME Medical Journal 2: 74.
[25]
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/threats
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
548 FASHION AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10018
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-688-8931