Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.05.31.494225

Retractions and rewards in science: An open question for reviewers and funders

Ribeiro, M. D.·Kalichman, M.·Vasconcelos, S. M.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ribeiro, M. D., Kalichman, M., Vasconcelos, S. M.. 2022-06-01. Retractions and rewards in science: An open question for reviewers and funders. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.31.494225

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Multi-Lab Testing of Early Preclinical Discoveries Identifies Promising Treatments

A fundamental challenge in drug development is the frequent failure of early laboratory research to translate into clinical benefit. One promising solution is to confirm findings from exploratory single-laboratory studies across multiple laboratories before clinical testing. We investigated this approach following the conduct of preclinical multi-laboratory studies across different fields of medicine. For this, we evaluated effect sizes, experimental rigor, and a set of criteria to identify determinants of confirmation success. When tested under increased rigor, only a fraction of multi-laboratory studies confirmed the initial results. The underlying effect size reduction was associated with outcome-relevant experimental differences between exploratory and confirmatory stages. In summary, multi-laboratory studies proved highly informative and served as an effective filter for promising treatments.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Technology-enhanced learning in undergraduate neuroscience education: tractography-based virtual dissection in psychology

Background: Neuroanatomy poses a significant challenge for Psychology students due to its spatial and conceptual complexity. Educational approaches that enhance the relevance and visualization of neuroanatomical content may improve students learning experiences. This study implemented a tractography-based activity focused on the virtual dissection of the arcuate fasciculus, a major white matter pathway, in undergraduate Psychology students and examined the relationships between perceived learning and students perceptions of utility, difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects of the activity. Methods: First-year undergraduate Psychology students participated in a two-session tractography-based activity combining instruction on white matter anatomy and diffusion tractography with a hands-on virtual dissection of the arcuate fasciculus using research-grade software routinely employed in neuroscience research. Following the activity, students completed an anonymous questionnaire assessing perceived learning, utility, difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects of the activity. Pearson correlations, multiple regression analyses, and relative importance analyses were performed. Results: Sixty-eight students completed the questionnaire. Students reported generally positive perceptions of the activity across the evaluated dimensions, with perceived learning receiving the highest mean score (M = 3.44, SD = .85). Perceived utility showed the strongest association with perceived learning (r = .64, p < .001). The regression model explained 41% of the variance in perceived learning (R2 = .41, adjusted R2 = .38, p < .001). Perceived utility was the only significant predictor in the model ({beta} = .59, p = .001), accounting for 67.9% of the explained variance. Conclusions: The findings support the feasibility of integrating authentic neuroimaging tools into undergraduate neuroanatomy teaching. Students who perceived the activity as more useful also reported higher perceived learning outcomes, with perceived utility emerging as the strongest predictor of perceived learning. In contrast, perceived difficulty and handling, and organizational aspects did not make significant independent contributions. These results suggest that students perceptions of educational relevance may play an important role in technology-enhanced STEM learning experiences.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

A randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups: Qualitative interviews revealing key elements of intervention efficacy

Background Training in grant proposal writing is an essential component of professional development for academic scientists in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Despite the expansion of inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups as an approach to honing these skills, specific features that enhance or limit coaching group effectiveness have not been rigorously studied. Methods Qualitative inerviews were conducted with a subset of early-career investigators (n=204 and coaches (n=36) engaged in a national, U.S. based, group-randomized trial of grant writing coaching groups to test the effects of two variables on submission and funding of national-level proposals: (1) coaching duration (regular/extended dose) and (2) mode of engaging a scientific advisor (someone with content-aligned expertise) in the coaching process. This report focuses on interviews conducted upon completion of the regular coaching dose - 5 months of biweekly, group-based coaching sessions to support active proposal writing. Interviews were designed to identify which coaching group elements were perceived to be the most critical. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using deductive (participants) or open (coaches) coding to identify themes. Results Triangulation of results from participant and coach interviews showed strong concordance that coaches, peers, and scientific advisors all played key roles in supporting intervention efficacy. Sufficient alignment of scientific fields and/or methodologies among group members was important, although breadth of perspectives was also valued. Other critical group features were skilled and well-organized coaches, detailed feedback, peer-to-peer support (technical and psychosocial), and clear expectations for group functioning. Factors attenuating impact included variation in participants' engagement and "readiness to write," within-group mismatches of expertise or grant mechanisms, and limited research support at some participants' home institutions. Conclusion This study identified key elements of successful grant writing coaching groups and potential barriers to their effectiveness, while yielding insights about tailoring this approach for individuals at different stages of proposal development.

scientific communication and education↗