3 ms·
Similar controversy surrounds whether Nazi medical research may be cited. I (ironically) cite no sources, but I believe the consensus is that they may be cited
by georgeburdell 3y ago
Similar controversy surrounds whether Nazi medical research may be cited. I (ironically) cite no sources, but I believe the consensus is that they may be cited if a) they are methodologically sound and b) other studies cannot serve as a substitute.
I am personally of the opinion that “information wants to be free” and ethics is not a reason to ignore methodologically-sound, published science. Punish the researchers, perhaps
- g-b-r 3y agoThis is a way to punish the researchers If the consequences of these behaviors are negligible others will be encouraged to do it as well
- cvalka 3y agoIf the results and reasoning are sound, it's absolutely bonkers not to cite the source. This is a not criminal trial and the exclusionary rule should not apply here.
- dgacmu 3y agoThis does punish the researchers - no citations, no publication to list in their cv. It hits them where they almost certainly care a lot. Absent cooperation from their home institution, the journals don't have much other leverage.
- nicklecompte 3y agoWithout commenting on the veracity of these specific allegations (it seems there is some controversy): The root cause of the replication crisis is that academics are given a tacit assumption of trust: if you read a peer-reviewed paper, you should be able to trust the conclusions without redoing all the experiments/analysis yourself. Sadly this trust is often not deserved. As a matter of editorial policy, researchers who are unethical in collecting samples shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt in analyzing those samples. Instead of carefully auditing their tainted results, it’s better to redo the experiment from scratch with a more trustworthy team.