On the Inconsistency between Practice and Reporting in Science: The Genesis of Scientific Articles

References

• All European Academies (ALLEA). 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Berlin: ALLEA. https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, Randy L. 2009. “Teaching the Nature of Science: Three Critical Questions.” Best Practices in Science Education 22: 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Damásio, António. 1994. Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Avon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. [1972] 2003. Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. The Athlone Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. [1991] 1994. What is Philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Desmond, Hugh, and Kris Dierickx. 2021. “Research Integrity Codes of Conduct in Europe: Understanding the Divergences.” Bioethics 35 (5): 414–428. doi:10.1111/bioe.12851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwan, Kerry, Carrol Gamble, Paula R. Williamson, Jamie J. Kirkham, and Reporting Bias Group. 2013. “Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias—An Updated Review.” PloS One 8 (7): e66844. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einstein, Albert. 1918. “Principles of Research.” Address to the Physical Society, Berlin, for Max Planck’s Sixtieth Birthday. https://www.site.uottawa.ca/~yymao/misc/Einstein_PlanckBirthday.html.
   Google Scholar
• Feyerabend, Paul. [1975] 1993. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Gingras, Yves. 2021. “‘Science’ Has Always Been Evaluated … and Will Always Be.” Social Science Information 60 (3): 303–307. doi:10.1177/05390184211025204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinnell, Frederick. 2011. Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael S. Reidy. 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Juergen. [1967] 2018. Ciência e Técnica como Ideologia. Lisbon: Edições 70.
   Google Scholar
• Hagstrom, Warren O. [1965] 2019. The Scientific Community. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/scientificcommun0000hags.
   Google Scholar
• Harmon, Joseph E. 1989. “The Structure of Scientific and Engineering Papers: A Historical Perspective.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 32 (3): 132–138. doi:10.1109/47.31618.
   Google Scholar
• Harwood, William S. 2004. “A New Model for Inquiry: Is the Scientific Method Dead?” Journal of College Science Teaching 33 (7): 29–33.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, Frederic L. 1987. “Scientific Writing and Scientific Discovery.” Isis 78 (2): 220–235. doi:10.1086/354391.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Howitt, Susan M., and Anna N. Wilson. 2014. “Revisiting ‘Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?’: The Way Textbooks and Scientific Research Articles are Being Used to Teach Undergraduate Students Could Convey a Misleading Image of Scientific Research.” EMBO Reports 15 (5): 481–484.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jacob, François. 1988. The Statue Within: An Autobiography. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jain, Ravi, Harry C. Triandis, and Cynthia W. Weick. 2010. Managing Research, Development and Innovation: Managing the Unmanageable. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kalberg, Stephen. 1980. “Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History.” The American Journal of Sociology 85 (5): 1145–1179. doi:10.1086/227128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, Norbert L. 1998. “HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (3): 196–217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The‎ University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marewski, Julian N., and Lutz Bornmann. 2018. “Opium in Science and Society: Numbers.” arXiv Preprint. arXiv: 1804.11210.
   Google Scholar
• Medawar, Peter. 1964. “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?” BBC Talk. http://www2.fct.unesp.br/docentes/carto/enner/PPGCC/Redacao/artigos/Is%20the%20scientific%20paper%20a%20fraud%3F.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Menary, Richard. 2007. “Writing as Thinking.” Language Sciences 29 (5): 621–632. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelson, Herbert B. 1987. “How Writing Helps R&D Work.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-30 (2): 85–86. doi:10.1002/9781119134633.ch43.
   Google Scholar
• The Office of Research Integrity (ORI). 2021. Definition of Research Misconduct. https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct.
   Google Scholar
• Reichenhach, Hans. 1938. Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, Drummond, and Annette Flanagin. 1992. “Publication Bias: The Triumph of Hope Over Experience.” JAMA 267 (3): 411–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, David B., Talicia Neal, Austin Raymond, and Grace E. Kissling. 2015. “Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by US Research Institutions.” Accountability in Research 22 (1): 14–21. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.891943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schickore, Jutta. 2008. “Doing Science, Writing Science.” Philosophy of Science 75 (3): 323–343. doi:10.1086/592951.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, Steven C. 2012. Neoliberalism and the Global Restructuring of Knowledge and Education. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar