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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar