Scientific integrity and the market for lemons
Open accessAbstract
Scientific integrity cannot be adequately ensured by appeals to the ethical principles of individual researchers. Research fraud has become a public scandal, exacerbated by our inability accurately to judge its extent. Current reliance on peer review of articles ready for publication as the sole means to control the quality and integrity of the majority of research has been shown to be inadequate, partly because faults in the research process may be concealed and partly because anonymous peer review is itself imperfect. Consequently, the scientific literature is mixed, with the reader unable always to distinguish the good articles from the bad. Scientific research is subject to market forces that will always provide a motivation for a range of misdemeanours. This has led to a ‘market for lemons’. Regulations, and sanctions against miscreants, need to be modelled on those historically found necessary to limit financial fraud. Practical and effective systems of process control and audit have already been devised to ensure the integrity of clinical and pre-clinical research. These should be adapted for use in a much wider range of research activities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An imbalance in trust between purveyor and consumer of knowledge has been termed a "lemon market," describing a decrease in quality from information asymmetry.
“An imbalance in trust between the purveyor and consumer of knowledge has been termed a “lemon market” (72), which is an idiomatic expression used to describe a decrease in quality that occurs from information asymmetry (73).”
From Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions (2018) · cites this paper as [72]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- British Medical Journal (2012) Available at: http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources- authors/article-types/research (accessed 25 March 2013).
- Chubin DE and Hackett EJ (1990) Peerless science. Peer review and US science policy. Albany, USA: State University of New York Press.
- Lauer MS (2012) Lemons in obesity. Annals of Internal Medicine 157: 139-140.
- Sense about Science (2004) Available at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer- review.html (accessed 25 March 2013).
- Smith R (1997) Time to open up the black box of peer review. British Medical Journal 315: 759.
- Authors
- Cottrell, R. C.
- Affiliations
- World Sugar Research Organisation (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Cottrell, Richard C
- Venue
- Research Ethics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-07-02
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-28
- ISSN
- 1747-0161 (ISSN-L)
- 2047-6094
- OpenAlex
- W2329607561
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Research Ethics (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- scientific integrity, scientific fraud, market for lemons, peer review, anonymous peer review, research misconduct, research quality control, research regulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
