Scientific Integrity

Susan Haack, “The Integrity of Science: What It Means, Why It Matters.”

Abstract: The many meanings of “integrity” are distinguished. This paper focuses specifically on how the concept of integrity in the sense of “firm adherence to values” applies to science qua institution. The most relevant values – the epistemological values of evidence-sharing and respect for evidence – are articulated, and shown to be rooted in the character of the scientific enterprise. This paves the way for an exploration of the circumstances that presently threaten to erode commitment to these core values: an exploration illustrated by the disturbing saga of the arthritis drugs Vioxx and Celebrex. The paper concludes with an articulation of why the erosion of scientific integrity should concern us.

This is the penultimate typescript of Chapter 2 _of Scientific Communication: Practices, Theories, and Pedagogies_, edited by Han Yu and Kathy Northcut. The chapter attempts to contribute to our understanding of scientific communication by exploring the ethics of scientific authorship. Specifically, we explore the historical, practical and theoretical implications of the (non)decision of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the nation's highest ethical office, not to include authorship issues in its definition of research misconduct.


Formed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1992, the ORI defines research misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (FFP). However, a host of other authorship issues in addition to plagiarism are important in science (e.g., authorship credit, author order, etc.) and are regularly encountered and often violated by scientists. However, our research also reveals that there are many sources of ethics in scientific communication-some in conflict with each other, just as the ethics are often in tension (e.g., the drive for originality and credit vs. the need to collaborate and share)-and that scientific organizations and journals, combined with social, personal, and other systems of morality and values, create "ethical lines and fields of force." It is within these shifting ethical fields of force, rather than the power of the ORI, that scientists work every day. (In this, we recognize of both Actor-Network Theory, and posthumanistic understandings of the limitations of human agency in continuously emergent and mostly unpredictable ecologies, here applied specifically scientific/authorship ethics.) 


The ORI's decision to exclude authorship ethics other than plagiarism provides a unique opportunity to interrogate the supposed and real power of the ORI; to begin to map the ethical lines and fields of force that impinge on scientists; and to explore the role and implications of ethics in authorship as a fundamental concern in scientific research as well as communication.

Abstract:
At present, the education processes in the Higher Education Institutions (IES), discover as the main source of information the internet and the databases, giving access to thousands of documents, of very varied quality. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to present an investigation that is being carried out at the Catholic University of Manizales (UCM). We want to deepen dishonest practices and the main motives of students and teachers. The investigation is of causal correlational design and uses as a tool a questionnaire specially designed to obtain this type of information, prepared by Violeta Cebrián Robles, who authorized its use.
Keywords: Plagiarism; academic dishonesty; ethics; scientific integrity

The right to freely conduct science is expressly protected by international human rights law (Art. 15, para 3, ICESCR). As the object of this right is ‘science’, activities conducted by scientists are protected by this right insofar as they satisfy the requirements set up by ethical guidelines. Practices that involve fabrication or falsification of data and plagiarism contradict the very essence of science, as they encompass acts of deception of the scientific community and society. Scientific misconduct became the subject of significant public attention beginning in the 1980s in the US and a decade later in Europe when a number of high-profile cases of data fabrication, falsification and plagiarism were discovered in prestigious academic institutions, publicly prosecuted and widely covered by the media. Since then, awareness has grown about the importance of adhering to ethical standards in the conduct of science. This trend led to the development of guidelines by academic and funding agencies, and the adoption of procedures for dealing with allegations of scientific misconduct. After briefly presenting the right to science, this chapter aims to outline the history of this development.

Historical research has shown that, at its inception, research ethics was conceived as distinct from existing discourses of professional ethics. Subsequently, this distinction has been maintained and, as a result, the discourse of research ethics appears to be an external to and independent of the practices it normatively analyses and comments upon. This chapter challenges these founding preconceptions and considers if research ethics can be understood as a professional ethics. Therefore, this chapter examines the criteria sociological research identifies as constitutive of a profession, and while one might conclude that research is obviously not formally instantiated as a profession, some of the sociological criteria have significant relevance. In this light it is argued that we might rethink the notion of research ethics in terms of a professional ethics. To do so would be to more clearly embed ethical discourse in the practice(s) of research, something that is consistent with the current turn to integrity.

Resumo: No presente texto, procuramos refletir sobre as más condutas nas atividades de pesquisa científica e argumentar em favor de uma cultura de ética e de integridade do pesquisador em formação inicial. Apontamos que o enfrentamento dessa questão compreende um projeto mais amplo, de formação de uma consciência, que envolve várias ações e que deve ser assumido por vários atores, de preferência de forma integrada (e até mesmo interdisciplinar).
Abstract In this text, we aim at reflecting on bad behavior by people in developing research and we argue in favor of an ethic culture and integrity from the person that is developing him/herself as a researcher. We point out that to face this question it is necessary a wider project, in search a kind of consciousness and this evolve several actions by a set of people. We believe this it is just possible if people do this together, integrated and in an interdisciplinary way).

This paper focuses on the infamous case of Hwang Woo Suk, the South-Korean national hero and once celebrated pioneer of stem cell research. After briefly discussing the evolution of his publication and research scandal in Science, I will attempt to outline the main reactions that emerged within scientific and bioethical discourses on the problem of research misconduct in contemporary biosciences. What were the ethical lapses in his research? What kind of research misconduct has been identified? How this kind of misconduct affects scientific integrity? How to avoid it? Focusing on these questions, the paper interprets the Hwang’s case as a case study that might shed light on the worst aspects of highstakes global science. This case presents a group of problems that might endanger scientific integrity and public trust. Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”.

The goal of this paper is to discuss scientific integrity, consumerism, conflicts of interest, and transparency within the context of forensic science. Forensic scientists play crucial roles within the legal system and are constantly under various pressures when performing analytical work, generating reports based on their analyses, or testifying to the content of these reports. Maintaining the scientific integrity of these actions is paramount to supporting a functional legal system and the practice of good science. Our goal is to discuss the importance of scientific integrity as well as the factors it may compromise, so that forensic practitioners may be better equipped to recognize and avoid conflicts of interest when they arise. In this discussion we define terms, concepts, and professional relationships as well as present three case studies to contextualize these ideas.

Աշխատանքը և  գիտական բարեխղճությունը, ստեղ ծագործ մտքի հետ զուգորդվելով, կարող են արդյունավետ արգասիքի հիմք դառնալ: Դրան հա կառակ`գրագողությունը (բանագողությունը) հանգեցնում է ստեղծարար մտքի «չորացման» և «անպտղության»:
Հոդվածում լուսաբանվել են գրագողություն հասկացությունը, վնասակար հետևանքները, այն կանխարգելելու եղանակներն ու միջոցները:
Ուսումասիրությունը իրականացվել է «Մատենագիտական հղումների ընդհանուր պահանջները, կազմման կանոնները և  տեղեկատվական կառավարումը» թեմայով Եվրասիա միջազգային համալսարանի ներբուհական գիտահետազոտական դրամաշնորհի հետազոտության շրջանակներում:
Հիմաբառեր. գրագողություն, գիտական բարեխղճություն, յուրահատուկ գաղափար, մեթոդական ցուցումներ, ակադեմիական միջավայր:

On September 17, 2002, millions around the globe gathered round their TV sets in anticipation of the TV Program “Pyramids Live: Secret Chambers Revealed”, a mission of National Geographic. Something went wrong that necessitates this forensic investigation.

Sosa's "virtue epistemology," Haack notes, is a form of reliabilism. Zagzebski's is more focused on epistemic virtues, though misguided in hoping to explain epistemic justification in terms of the exercise of such virtues. But epistemic virtues are a fascinating topic, as Haack shows in this wide-ranging look at the ideal of intellectual integrity.

As researchers, we are often required to disclose any conflicts of interest we might have, for instance, when submitting a paper to a journal, or when acting as reviewers of a research project at the request of a funding agency. Over the past few decades, the duty to declare conflicts of interest has become a normal component of academic life. However, the concept is sometimes misunderstood. What is a conflict of interest and why it matters?

A digital signature is a method that serves to improve the integrity, authenticity, non-repudiation, and confidentiality of digital data in transmission. This paper discusses digital signature and encryption functions for data communication. In this study, implementing the data transmission is done by email using digital signatures and encryption functionality on Open PGP. In the end, this research resulted that the function of the digital signature and encryption can be implemented effectively in the process of sending data/ information via email.

In the past two decades, individual explanations of scientific misconduct ('bad apples') have increasingly given way to systemic explanations ('bad systems'). Where did this interest in systemic factors (publication pressure, competition for research funding) come from? Given that research ethicists often present their interventions as responses to scientific misconduct, this article tests the hypothesis that these systemic explanations were triggered by high-visibility cases of scientific norm violation. It does so by examining why Dutch scientists in 2011 explained Diederik Stapel's grand-scale data fabrication largely in systemic terms, whereas only fifteen years earlier, in the René Diekstra affair (1996), such explanations had been close to absent. Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, the article suggests that cases like Stapel's as such do not explain why early 21st-century commentators exchanged individual explanations for systemic ones. Only against the background of an existing discourse of criticism of the science system, developed in the 1990s and 2000s in response to rapidly increasing competition for research funding, could the Stapel affair achieve notoriety as an example of how systemic factors provoke bad conduct.

Introductory courses dealing with sex, gender and sexuality are usually quite biased, going as far as to deny the reality of biology. Drawing on the Catholic tradition (Aquinas), this article presents an accessible argument aimed at restoring deliberative balance in the classroom.

There are two fundamental bases for the moral responsibilities of scientists: role responsibilities and general responsibilities. Scientists have role responsibilities that come with being a scientist; these include the burdens of governance in the scientific community and upholding the ethical standards internal to science. The role that scientists play, however, does not shield them from the general moral responsibilities that we all share. Of particular importance to scientists are the responsibilities not to be reckless or negligent, i.e. not to ignore or fail to reflect on the risks inherent in scientific research for society at large. These general responsibilities take on an increased urgency given the potentially widespread impact of scientific work. If scientists choose to neglect these responsibilities, they must be taken up by others, thus threatening the scientists’ autonomy.

The paper shows how error statistical theory can be deployed to grasp the deeper epistemic logic of the peer-review process. The intent is to provide the readers with a novel lens through which to make sense of the practices of academic publishing.

Honesty in scientific publication is critical for scientific advancement, but dishonesty is commonly and increasingly observed in the forms of misconduct and other questionable practices. Focusing on dishonest conformity in peer review, in which authors unwillingly obey referees’ instructions in order to have their papers accepted even if the instructions contradict the author’s scientific belief, the current study aims to investigate the determinants of dishonesty. Drawing on survey data of Japanese life scientists, this study shows that the conflict between authors and referees in peer review is quite common, under which a majority of scientists follow referees’ instructions rather than to refute them. The results suggest that conformity occurs more frequently 1) in biology than in medicine and agriculture, 2) when authors are under stronger scientific competition, 3) if authors are associate professors rather than full professors, 4) if authors have no foreign research experience, and 5) in low-impact journals rather than in medium-impact journals.

This deliverable DIII.1.2 is part of work package 3 in which indicators are gathered on the extent of misconduct and how institutions respond to breaches of scientific integrity. As a part of the empirical phase in PRINTEGER it contributes to our analysis of what policies and organizational responses are most likely to engender a culture of integrity in research organisations. The exploration of the incidence of misconduct is combined with the institutional response, since it is partly through this response that misconduct is made explicit or even defined.
This deliverable reflects on one of the key questions in the scientific integrity debate; what is the incidence or extent of misconduct in science? This is one of the questions raised many years ago, but a clear-cut answer is not available and may be even impossible to formulate. What we know about misconduct in science has for the largest part been derived from self-report studies and rough estimations in statistics of universities, control agencies or funding bodies. Therefore, it remains difficult to conclude whether or not these estimations are correct, significant and reliable.
In this deliverable, we report about our attempt to gather empirical data on breaches of integrity that have ended up in official administrative or institutional (academic) files e.g. cases which are visible in administrative procedures of research and research funding institutions or bodies for investigating misconduct cases. With this report, we do not pretend to have found a clear answer to the incidence question. We do however aim to make visible the procedural chain that is followed when a case of misconduct comes to the surface. Besides a ‘mapping’ exercise, we aim at discussing theoretical and methodological issues when it comes to gathering data relying upon official procedures. Registration practices differ greatly from one research institution to another, from one country to another. This makes comparative research in general (and between the countries involved in this deliverable) very difficult if not impossible.
However, we argue that issues concerning denunciation, discovery and registration practices, whistle blowing, transparency, gaining access, confidentiality, reputational bias etc. are precisely worth a close scrutiny and must be discussed when doing research on the prevalence of misconduct in science in a European context. Indeed, in our view these aspects of the incidence question are not merely technical (or methodological) but they reveal a lot about the nature of scientific misconduct and about how scientific integrity and misconduct are intimately intertwined with daily scientific and academic practices and organization. They are mutually constitutive. Hence, there may be significant differences between disciplinary scientific practices as well as between national science systems (countries). It reveals a lot about how alleged breaches of integrity and misconduct are experienced, detected, reported, processed, registered and reacted upon.
Starting from a state of the art of what has been measured in previous research, we focused on the biases that have to be taken into account when measuring the extent and incidence of misconduct. Besides a discussion on issues related to the use of official statistics, self-report studies and reputational biases we reflect on the conceptual issues embedded in the process of registration and their consequences for registering practices in administrative procedures. In a next step, we discuss the separate methodologies of the partners involved in this deliverable and the results that were obtained. This report wraps up with a concluding part, reflecting on future directions for research on this topic and the data sources that are useful to measure misconduct in science.

How can the history of research ethics be expanded beyond the standard narrative of codification – a story that does not reach back beyond World War II – without becoming so broad as to lose all distinctiveness? This article proposes a history of research ethics focused on the " scientific self, " that is, the role-specific identity of scientists as typically described in terms of skills, competences, qualities, or dispositions. Drawing on three agenda-setting texts from nineteenth-century history, biology, and sociology, the article argues that the " revolutions " these books sought to unleash were, among other things, revolts against inherited conceptions of scientific selfhood. They tried to redefine the scientific self in their respective fields of inquiry by advocating particular catalogs of virtues or character traits. The article subsequently shows that these ideals of selfhood, their contested nature notwithstanding, translated into practice in so far as they influenced hiring and selection policies and found their way into educational systems. By way of conclusion, the article argues that the project of reclaiming the scientific self as a important subject of study in the history of research ethics is not an antiquarian pursuit, but related to an ethical question faced by scientists today: How are our scientific selves being shaped by funding schemes, research evaluation protocols, and academic hiring policies?

An interplay of lacking methodological and research integrity, joined by inadequate research training and Management skills might be at the heart of disappointing research achieve-ments in The Netherlands. Against the backdrop of this disheartening situation two frame-works are compared to one another – The Scientific spirit and the Dutch reviewed ethical code Adviesrapport Commissie Verkenning Herziening Gedragscode Wetenschapsbeoefe-ning (2016). The latter is bound to education and research, while the former extends beyond education and research, and is meant to be a way of life, involving both the application of methodology and ethics. Meanwhile the Dutch reviewed ethical code shows a great deal of overlap with The Scientific spirit – its predecessor so to say.
To solve the research crises which is affecting society negatively I propose that the entire Dutch educational system is overhauled, toward an all-encompassing research attitude which satisfies The Scientific spirit considering the nature of different research traditions that are not considered in The Scientific spirit.

A recent Experimental & Molecular Medicine article contained an internally inaccurate title: “Gender-inde- pendent efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in sex hormone-deficient bone loss via immunosuppression and resident stem cell recovery”1. The title should have read “Sex-independent efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in sex hormone-deficient bone loss via immu- nosuppression and resident stem cell recovery”. Sex is biological. It is determined by the X and Y chromosomes. The article focused on male and female mice. There is no clinical identifier for gender. Thus, “sex” should have been used in the title and throughout the article.

Clinical research has at least three problematic features: it tends to be redundant, secretive, and isolated. Research with these features not only wastes resources and causes harm, it also fails to meet a basic ethical requirement of research: scientific validity. According to a recent editorial in the BMJ, bioethicists and members of research ethics committees have been “notable by their absence” among those exposing persistent problems with clinical research and proposing solutions (Chalmers, Glasziou, and Godlee, BMJ 346, 2013, f105). In this paper I offer a theoretical diagnosis for the complicity of bioethicists and research ethics committees in these ongoing problems, as well as a partial solution in the form of a modified ethical requirement of scientific integrity.

Despite the prevailing norm that expert reasoning should be as free from ethical and social influences as possible, it is argued that this norm is an undesirable norm for experts and needs to be replaced. Because of the importance of expertise in public life, experts have a responsibility to consider carefully the consequences of error when making empirical claims. This responsibility is no threat to expertise, because it is dubious that the authority of expertise rests on following internal disciplinary norms only, and because the integrity of expertise can still be protected from politicization by following a different norm, one that requires values serve only to weigh the importance of uncertainty. These new norms provide a clearer understanding of bias in experts. Finally, the new norms also clarify what should be at stake in technically based public issues, which is both what the available evidence indicates and what consequences of error we are willing to risk.

Abstract (D): Neuere Beispiele zeigen, wie Rechtswissenschaftler – und nicht nur Naturwissenschaftler, wie z.B. in jüngster Zeit Epidemiologen und Virologen  – aufgrund ihrer Expertise Einfluss auf die Politik nehmen können oder dies zumindest anstreben. Überraschend ist dies nicht: Sachverstand stellt eine von vielen möglichen Einflussquellen dar.  Wie dieser Beitrag darzulegen versucht, ist die Rechtswissenschaft eine ausgesprochen politiknahe Disziplin. Die Grenzen zwischen rechtswissenschaftlicher Expertise und politischer Beeinflussung sind fliessend: einerseits beeinflussen Rechtswissenschaftler(innen) die Politik, andererseits ist die rechtswissenschaftliche Forschung nicht frei von politischen Einflüssen. Entsprechend stellt sich die Frage, welche normativen Grundsätze die rechtswissenschaftliche Forschung leiten sollten bzw. ob und wie Forschende sich in den politischen Diskurs einbringen sollten. Dieser Problematik geht der vorliegende Aufsatz nach, wobei der Fokus auf die Schweiz gerichtet ist. In einem ersten Schritt wird erläutert, weshalb die Rechtswissenschaft eine besonders politiknahe Disziplin darstellt. Anschliessend wird eruiert, welche normativen Grundsätze das Verhältnis zwischen Rechtswissenschaft und Politik de lege lata regeln. Angesichts der zahlreichen offenen Fragen, welche die Schnittstelle zwischen rechtswissenschaftlicher Forschung und politischem Aktivismus aufwirft, wird abschliessend dafür plädiert, dass die rechtswissenschaftliche Forschungsgemeinschaft diesbezüglich klarere und präzisere Normen schafft. Dies würde es ihren Mitgliedern erlauben, sich in diesem Spannungsfeld zu orientieren und ihre Tätigkeit verantwortungsvoll und selbstkritisch auszuüben. Drei wichtige Ansätze zur Erreichung dieses Ziels bestehen in der flächendeckenden Einführung von Peer-Review-Verfahren, in der Verabschiedung von Normen zur Gutachtertätigkeit sowie in der Offenlegung von Interessenbindungen. In allen drei Fällen geht es darum, die Unabhängigkeit der Forschenden und zugleich auch die Autonomie der Rechtswissenschaft als Disziplin zu schützen.

Abstract (E): Recent examples show how legal scholars - and not only natural scientists, such as, recently, epidemiologists and virologists - can use their expertise to influence politics, or at least strive to do so. This is not surprising: expertise is one of many possible sources of influence. As this article attempts to show, legal research is a  discipline that is particularly close to politics. The boundaries between legal expertise and political influence are fluid: on the one hand, legal scholars influence politics; on the other hand, legal research is not free of political influence. Accordingly, the question arises as to which normative principles should guide legal research, and whether and how researchers should engage in political discourse. The present article examines this problem by focusing mainly on Switzerland. In a first step, I explain why legal research as a discipline is particularly close to politics. Subsequently, I identify the normative principles that govern the relationship between legal research and politics de lege lata. In view of the numerous open questions raised by the interface between legal research and political activism, in the final section I argue that the legal scholarly community should create clearer and more precise norms in this regard. This would allow its members to orient themselves in this field of tension and to carry out their work in a responsible and self-critical manner. Three important approaches to achieving this goal are the widespread introduction of peer review procedures, the adoption of standards as regards expert opinions, and the disclosure of interest ties. In all three cases, the aim should be to protect the independence of legal researchers and, at the same time, the autonomy of legal research as a scientific discipline.

Cet article a pour objectif de définir une méthodologie pluridisciplinaire à appliquer lors d'enquête ethnologique de terrain afin de combler d'éventuelles lacunes dans la collecte de données, notamment orales et de s'assurer de la bonne qualité et de la justesse des informations qui nous sont transmises.

The purpose of this article is to define a multidisciplinary methodology for an ethnological field survey in order to fill any gaps in collecting data, especially oral data and to ensure the good quality and accuracy of the information that is transmitted to us.

Haack begins by asking what could be meant by speaking of the integrity of science;  continues by explaining why the core values of science, intellectual honesty and evidence-sharing, are important; and concludes, after a detailed study of the research behind the arthritis drug Vioxx, that there are serious threats to scientific integrity today.

This translation (by Edison Otero) is more complete than the previously-published one.

RESEARCH INTEGRITY: HOW TO CONDUCT RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT 2 ECTS | MASTER, PHD & PROFESSIONALS 500-800 € ONLINE •10-14 JANUARY 2022. The integrity of scientific research has received an increase in attention in recent years. Researchers, policy makers, politicians as well as universities at large have raised concerns about the way academic research is organized and about the influence of the research culture on research practice. Academia is currently facing a challenging set of problems: first, the prevalence of research misbehaviour was found higher than desirable; second, the reproducibility crisis and the factors contributing to the impossibility to replicate a large set of research results; and third, the issue of research waste, which is mainly due to poor reporting and the failure to publish negative or ambiguous results. By making PhD candidates or master students who are preparing for a career in research aware of these issues, and by training them in the required skills and tools needed to address these issues, we prepare them to remain responsible researchers in an environment that might lure them into sloppy science, even unintentionally. This course reviews research integrity in academia in both the conduct of science, the evaluation of science, the peer review system and in the academic community at large. It is a highly interactive course where participants engage with different issues such as replication, the peer review crisis, and what a responsible research culture looks like. We also look into the future of academia and specifically open science. By the end of this course students will be able to: Know what the current status of academic research requires; • know whether there is a replicability crisis and what remedies are coined to improve science; • apply the code of conduct for research integrity within student's own work; • reflect on research integrity dilemmas within specific fields; • know how one can spot unprofessional conduct of research; • know what research integrity will look like in the future and how experts expect academic research to be organized.
APPLICATION DEADLINES & DISCOUNTS Apply before the 15th November 2021. To benefit from our Early Bird discout (-50€) apply before 1 October 2021! Visit our website for more information.
The Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) is an internationally renowned research university. Since its founding in 1880 interdisciplinary research has been leading in its education. The university consists of nine faculties with teaching facilities for 24.000 students. With over 140 English-taught Bachelor's and Master's programmes, the university offers a wide range of study options. The campus is a centrally located hub where people easily feel at home. WWW.VU.NL/WINTERSCHOOL | [email protected] | +31 20 59 82944

Este trabalho pretende analisar a temática da autoria e coautoria de artigos científicos, especialmente em relação ao campo do Direito. Basicamente, almeja-se responder: quando um pesquisador pode, legitimamente, ser indicado como coautor de um artigo científico? Trata-se de questão pertinente, tendo em vista os impactos acadêmicos, sociais e econômicos da definição de autoria, além da importância em termos de responsabilização e integridade da produção científica. Assim, serão analisados os critérios de coautoria e as diretrizes básicas sobre a temática.

This journal recently drew attention to an extensive body of highly questionable research published by Hans J. Eysenck in collaboration with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. The subsequent enquiry by King's College London concluded that 26 publications were unsafe and warranted retraction. However, the enquiry reviewed only a subset of the 61 questionable publications initially submitted to them, only those Eysenck co-authored with Grossarth-Maticek. The enquiry excluded publications where Eysenck was the sole author. The King's College London enquiry must be properly completed. They have a pressing responsibility to re-convene and broaden their review to include all Eysenck's publications based on the same body of research-including an additional 27 publications recently uncovered. The unsatisfactory nature of the KCL review process makes the case for a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson even stronger.

Naturalistic philosophers rely on literature search and review in a number of ways and for different purposes. Yet this article shows how processes of literature search and review are likely to be affected by widespread and systematic biases. A solution to this problem is offered here. Whilst the tradition of systematic reviews of literature from scientific disciplines has been neglected in philosophy, systematic reviews are important tools that minimize bias in literature search and review and allow for greater reproducibility and transparency. If naturalistic philosophers wish to reduce bias in their research, they should then supplement their traditional tools for literature search and review by including systematic methodologies.