Ineffective group dynamics play a role in poor research reporting

December 13, 2011

Ineffective group dynamics within research groups and research collaborations contribute to the unrealistic picture of the data generated in scientific research, according to Judith Rosmalen and Albertine Oldehinkel from the University of Groningen in The Netherlands. In an Essay published in this week's PLoS Medicine, these researchers say: "We feel it is time for scientists to also critically evaluate their own role, and acknowledge that group dynamics within research groups and collaborations might contribute to the persistence of problematic scientific practices."

In a previously published provocative PLoS Medicine Essay entitled "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," John Ioannidis and colleagues applied economic principles to argue that the current system of publication in biomedical research provides a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic. In this current Essay, Rosmalen and Oldehinkel say: "we believe that the problems [Ioannidis and colleagues] discussed arise not only at this macro level, but also at a lower aggregation level, that is, within research consortia."

They continue: "macro-level processes are hard to change because that requires action from anonymous others outside our sphere of influence. Micro-level processes are more malleable, and changes at this level can be implemented right away."

The authors say: "we wish to emphasize the potentially biasing effects of internal group dynamics, as opposed to the faulty publication practices that are more often discussed in the literature."

By analysing the group dynamics at play in a research consortium that both researchers were involved with, the Tracking Adolescents' Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS), the authors admit that despite their best efforts, "in hindsight, we realize these procedures have not precluded publication of partly confusing and possibly irreproducible research findings, which have not significantly advanced our knowledge of the phenomenon under study."

In their Essay, Rosmalen and Oldehinkel make the case for improving problematic scientific practices by having clearly defined overall goals, explicitly described roles and responsibilities for all co-authors, and a rational choice of methodological strategies. Furthermore, the authors stress that all researchers should recognize that the overarching task of any research is to address scientifically relevant issues, not necessarily to write and publish research papers. The

The authors conclude: "We hope our analysis will stimulate a broader discussion of problematic scientific practices, which include not only faulty publication practices but also the potentially biasing effects of internal group dynamics. In the end, both the system and the consortia are our own products and thus our shared but also individual responsibility."
-end-
Funding: TRAILS has been financially supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research NOW (Medical Research Council program grant GB-MW 940-38-011; ZonMW Brainpower grant 100-001-004; ZonMw Risk Behavior and Dependence grants 60-60600-98-018 and 60-60600-97-118; ZonMw Culture and Health grant 261-98-710; Social Sciences Council medium-sized investment grants GB-MaGW 480-01-006 and GB-MaGW 480-07-001; Social Sciences Council project grants GB-MaGW 457-03-018, GB-MaGW 452-04-314, and GB-MaGW 452-06-004; NWO large-sized investment grant 175.010.2003.005), the Sophia Foundation for Medical Research (projects 301 and 393), the Dutch Ministry of Justice (WODC), the European Science Foundation (EuroSTRESS project FP-006), and the participating universities. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Citation: Rosmalen JGM, Oldehinkel AJ (2011) The Role of Group Dynamics in Scientific Inconsistencies: A Case Study of a Research Consortium. PLoS Med 8(12): e1001143. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001143

CONTACT:

Albertine Oldehinkel
Interdisciplinary Center for Psychiatric Epidemiology
University Medical Center Groningen
University of Groningen
PO Box 30.001
Groningen, 9700 RB
The Netherlands
31-50-3611712
a.j.oldehinkel@umcg.nl

PLOS

Related Scientific Research Articles from Brightsurf:

Who's Tweeting about scientific research? And why?
Although Twitter is best known for its role in political and cultural discourse, it has also become an increasingly vital tool for scientific communication.

Weaving Indigenous knowledge with scientific research: a balanced approach
Insights from bicultural research can enhance practical applications from a palaeotsunami database to land-use decisions, according to a new review in Earth Surface Dynamics

Level of media coverage for scientific research linked to number of citations
An analysis of over 800 academic research papers on physical health and exercise suggests that the level of popular media coverage for a given paper is strongly linked to the attention it receives within the scientific community.

Spotting cutting-edge topics in scientific research using keyword analysis
Researchers from the University of Tsukuba conducted a quantitative keyword analysis of 30 million articles in the life sciences over a nearly fifty-year period (1970-2017) and found that 75% of total emerging keywords, at 1-year prior to becoming identified as emerging, co-appeared with other emerging keywords in the same article.

Calibration method improves scientific research performed with smartphone cameras
Although smartphones and other consumer cameras are increasingly used for scientific applications, it's difficult to compare and combine data from different devices.

AccessLab: New workshops to broaden access to scientific research
A team from the transdisciplinary laboratory FoAM Kernow and the British Science Association detail how to run an innovative approach to understanding evidence called AccessLab in a paper published on May 28 in the open-access journal PLOS Biology.

University of Idaho study finds scientific reproducibility does not equate to scientific truth
Reproducible scientific results are not always true and true scientific results are not always reproducible, according to a mathematical model produced by University of Idaho researchers.

Scientific research will help to understand the origin of life in the universe
Scientists from Samara University and several universities in the USA have proposed and experimentally confirmed new fundamental chemical mechanisms for the synthesis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

New research helps to inform the design of scientific advisory committees
At a time of 'fake news' and a growing mistrust of scientific experts, researchers at York University's Global Strategy Lab have produced new research to help inform the design of scientific advisory committees and help maximize the application of high-quality scientific research towards future policy and program decisions.

Jumping to scientific conclusions challenges biomedical research
Improving experimental design and statistical analyses alone will not solve the reproducibility crisis in science, argues Ray Dingledine in a societal impact article published in eNeuro.

Read More: Scientific Research News and Scientific Research Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.