Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others

Abstract

Fallibility in science cuts both ways: it poses dilemmas for the scientist who discovers errors in their own work, and for those who discover errors in the work of others. The ethical response to finding errors in one's own work is clear: they should be claimed and corrected promptly. Yet people are often reluctant to 'do the right thing' because of a perception this could lead to reputational damage. Open science practices can help avoid errors and also lead to recognition that mistakes are part of normal science. Indeed, a reputation for scientific integrity can be enhanced by admitting to errors. Conversely, failure to admit to errors can create internal conflict and damage a researcher's reputation in the longer term. I also consider the situation where errors are discovered in the work of others; in the case of honest errors, action must be taken to put things right, but this should be done in a collegial way that offers the researcher the opportunity to deal with the problem themselves. Difficulties arise if those who commit errors are unresponsive or reluctant to make changes, when there is disagreement about whether a dataset or analysis is problematic, or where deliberate manipulation of findings or outright fraud is suspected. I offer some guidelines about how to approach such cases. My key message is that errors are inevitable. In the long run, scientists will not be judged on whether or not they make mistakes, but on how they respond when those mistakes are detected.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.