Did you know Microsoft dished out a staggering $16 million in bug bounties in 2023 to those who uncovered flaws in their products? Or that Google poured a whopping $10 million into their bug bounty program that same year?
Borrowing this idea, the University of Bern is now funding a program called Estimating the Reliability and Robustness of Research (ERROR), where specialists scrutinizing scientific publications are paid to find faults. A first of its kind, the program emphasizes the importance of engaging in the exercise of identifying flaws in published articles to improve the credibility of research.
Why is this important?
When journals were published as hard copies, retraction letters were included, and it was indicated if an article was retracted. As journals moved online, this system continued, with the status of an article being marked as ‘retracted’ on their website. However, with not all errors being adequately tracked, further scrutiny and tracing became necessary. Additionally, retracted articles continue to be cited due to a lack of awareness. Twelve years ago, this led to the establishment of a popular page in the scientific community called Retraction Watch. Retraction Watch does not advocate for or against retraction but attempts to improve the credibility of publications by monitoring corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern.
However, even with Retraction Watch in place, several articles continue to escape actual scrutiny. Some common reasons for this include:
- Errors that have been carried forward by the scientist or group over the years.
- No author wants to have a retracted article because it could hurt their reputation and even their chances of receiving funding. Consequently, the number of unreliable publications has grown disproportionately over the years.
- Scientists now engage in a peer review system to publish their papers and are aware that a retraction has always been perceived as shameful for the authors.
- The peer review system has also enforced a kind of diplomacy, where the mutual sensitivities of researchers within a niche are considered. This has led to scientists avoiding straightforward communication about each other’s work, resulting in what could be perceived as a quid pro quo situation.
- The problem of academics not taking accountability seriously has become increasingly evident with publications related to COVID-19.
Perceiving Retractions
While not to be taken lightly, retractions help advance science by identifying inherent flaws in publications and help maintain scientific integrity. Unfortunately, no academic body seems to have systematized the need for regular scrutiny of institutional research. Regular scrutiny would not only eliminate wrongful contributions but also uphold the credibility of research while compensating those who can engage in such examinations. Although still in trial, ERROR is the first program of its kind.
What does ERROR offer?
- Reviewers are paid a base rate of 1,000 francs per paper.
- The larger the magnitude of the error, the larger the payment (up to 2,500 francs).
- Authors who agree to have their work examined receive 250 francs, with a bonus of another 250 francs if no errors are found.
- Reviewer reports are not anonymized.
Drawbacks
- Reviewers may exaggerate errors for a larger prize. While the scope for this exists, middlemen who do not receive any bounty also weigh in on the reviewers’ feedback.
- ERROR selects only highly cited articles and reviews them only if their authors agree. This introduces bias. However, it is understandable that selecting papers at random could mean utilizing resources on smaller or less impactful research.
Future Scope
While ERROR is expected to continue for some time, there has never been a greater need for programs of this nature. Given that impactful research translates to real-world applications, the stakes are high. Therefore, stakeholders (government, academic institutions, private bodies, industry etc.) should also invest in error detection and correction. Publishers must also invest more in their quality control teams to ensure they publish credible research.
Conclusion
- Retractions improve the credibility and integrity of research.
- Investing in error detection and correction or in the quality control of publications is a high-value investment with tremendous impact, stretching from an individual’s career to the welfare of society.
- Besides ethics, credibility, and integrity, correcting errors can significantly advance a field of research, making such an investment worthwhile.
Reference:
