Protean Uses of Trust: A Curious Case of Science Hoaxes

Sabina Siebert; Stephanie Schreven

doi:10.18778/2450-4491.09.15

Authors

Sabina Siebert Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9094-271X
Stephanie Schreven University of Dundee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5762-0540

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/2450-4491.09.15

Keywords:

peer review, science hoax, trust in science

Abstract

This article explores an intervention that practises the ‘art of deception’ in the context of biomedical publishing. Specifically, we explore the science hoax aimed at revealing problems in the peer review process. We pose a question – are science hoaxes based on deception ever justified? Drawing on interviews with biomedical scientists in the UK, we identify the issue of trust as the key element in the scientists’ evaluations of hoaxes. Hoaxes are seen by some to increase trust, and are seen by others to damage trust. Trust in science is thus a Protean concept: it can be used to argue for two completely different, and sometimes contradictory, positions. In this case, the same argument of trust was recognizably invoked to defend the hoaxes, and to argue against them.

Author Biographies

Sabina Siebert, Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow

Siebert Sabina – Professor of Management at the Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow (Scotland, UK). Her research focuses on organizational change, organizational trust and the study of professions, including lawyers and doctors. She has recently researched trust and distrust in secret organizations, trust in science and differentiation in elite professions.
Stephanie Schreven, University of Dundee

Schreven Stephanie – is a Lecturer at the University of Dundee School of Business (Scotland, UK) where she lectures on inequality, diversity, organizational misbehaviour, and business in society. Her research is concerned with workplace inequalities, specifically generated by social closure, and revolves around the politics, ethics and aesthetics of expertise, professionalism and scholarly knowledge production. For instance, she researches alternative knowledge claims, such as those involved in conspiracy theories and hoaxes. She also researches leadership with an interest in (female) authority.

References

Baringer P. S. (2001) Introduction: The “science wars” in: After the science wars: science and the study of science, K. Ashman & P. S. Baringer (eds.), New York, Routledge: 1–13.

Beall J. (2015) Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures, “Information Development”, 31 (5): 473–476.

Bohannon J. (2013) Who is afraid of peer review? “Science”, 342 (6154): 60–65, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Broad W. & Wade N. (1982) Betrayers of the truth, London, Century Publishing.

Brown J. R. (2001) Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collins H., Evans R. and Weinel M. (2017) STS as science or politics?, “Social Studies of Science”, 40 (2): 307–340.

Faulkes Z. (2017) Stinging the predators: a collection of papers that should never have been published, https://figshare.com/articles/Stinging_the_Predators_A_collection_of_papers_that_should_never_have_been_published/5248264

Eisen M. (2011) Peer review is f***ed up—let’s fix it, http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=694

Fyfe A. (2015) Peer review not as old as you might think, Times Higher Education, June 25, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think

Gabriel Y. (2004) The narrative veil: truth and untruths in storytelling in: Myth, stories and organizations. Premodern narratives for our times, Y. Gabriel (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 17–31.

Godlee F., Gale C. R., Martyn C. N. (1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial, “Journal of American Medical Associations”, 280: 237–240.

Goffman E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer review in scientific publications, London, The Stationery Office Limited, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf

Ioannidis J. P. A. (2011) More time for research: Fund people not projects, “Nature”, 477: 529–531.

Jonsen A. and Toulmin S. (1988) The Abuse of Casuistry, Berkeley, California, California University Press.

Kitcher P. (2001) Science, Truth, and Democracy, New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Lamont M. (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgement, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Lee C. J., Sugimoto C. R., Zhang G., Cronin B. (2013) Bias in peer review, “Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology”, 64 (1): 2–17.

Longino H. (2002) Science & the common good: thoughts Philip Kitcher’s Science, Truth & Democracy, “Philosophy of Science”, 59: 560–568.

Miles M. B. and Huberman A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, London, Sage.

Miller C. (2006) Peer review in the organization and management sciences; Prevalence and effects of reviewer hostility, bias, and dissensus “Academy of Management Journal”, 49 (3): 425–431.

Shepherd J. (2009) Editor quits after journal accepts bogus science article, “The Guardian”, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

Siebert S., Machesky L. and Insall R. (2015) ‘Overflow in science and its implications for trust’, “eLife” 4: e10825.

Smith R. (1988) Problems with peer review and alternatives, “British Medical Journal”, 298: 774–777.

Smith R. (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, “Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine”, 99 (4): 178–182.

Sokal A. (1996) A physicist experiments with Cultural Studies, “Lingua Franca”, May/June.

Sorokowski P., Kulczycki E., Sorokowska A., and Pisanski K. (2017) Predatory journals recruit a fake editor, “Nature”, Mar 22; 543 (7646): 481–483. doi: 10.1038/543481a.

Südhof T. C. (2016) Truth in Science publishing: A personal perspective, “PLOS Biology”, http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002547

Stolzenberg G. (2004) Kinder, Gentler Science Wars, “Social Studies of Science”, 34 (1): 115–132.

Stone R. & Jasny B. (2013) Scientific discourse, Buckling at the seams. Introduction to Special Issue. Communication in Science: Pressures & Predators, “Science”, 342 (6154), 56–57, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/56

Toulmin S. (2001) Return to Reason, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard UP.

Turner S. (2003) Third science war, “Social Studies of Science”, 33, 4: 581–611.

Vinck D. (2010) The sociology of scientific work. The fundamental relationship between Science and Society, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Walsh L. (2006) Sins against science: The scientific media hoaxes of Poe, Twain, and others, Albany, State University of New York Press.

Ware M. (2013) Peer Review: An Introduction and Guide, Publishing Research Consortium, http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/prc-guides-main-menu/155-peer-review-an-introduction-and-guide

Wellcome Trust (2015) Scholarly Communication and Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends, https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/scholarly-communication-and-peer-review-mar15.pdf