Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166525›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

Handling Anomalous Data in the Lab: Students' Perspectives on Deleting and Discarding.

Mikkel Willum Johansen, Frederik Voetmann Christiansen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mikkel Willum JohansenDepartment of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 3, 1350, Copenhagen K, Denmark. mwj@ind.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0454-2678
Frederik Voetmann ChristiansenDepartment of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 3, 1350, Copenhagen K, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents and discusses empirical results from a survey about the research practice of Danish chemistry students, with a main focus on the question of anomalous data. It seeks to investigate how such data is handled by students, with special attention to so-called 'questionable research practices' (QRPs) where anomalous data are simply deleted or discarded. This question of QRPs is of particular importance as the educational practices students experience may influence how they act in their future professional careers, for instance in research. The ethical evaluation of QRPs however is not univocal. In parts of the literature QRPs are seen as unquestionably bad, while in other parts of the literature certain QRPs are seen as a necessary aspect of scientific practice. Results from the survey of Danish chemistry students shows that many students engage in certain types of questionable practices, and that a large minority of the students have been actively encouraged by their teachers to engage in such practices. The paper discusses to what extent and under what circumstances such instructional practices can be defended and suggests how the instructional practice connected to the handling of anomalous data can be improved.

Indexed as

Research DesignStudentsHumansPublicationsSurveys and QuestionnairesAcademic dishonestyLaboratory practiceProfessional ethicsQuestionable research practices

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.