Who Watches the Watchers?
In the age of generative AI, the "replication crisis,” and increasing pressure to “publish or perish” – amplified by growing social and political hostility to academia – the temptation to cut corners, look the other way, or otherwise sacrifice academic integrity to get ahead has never been stronger. Indeed, many scientists, journal editors, and publishers do, unfortunately, engage in unethical practices – as The Analytical Scientist has highlighted in recent years.
However, there is another side to the coin – one less discussed, but no less damaging. In recent years, a new breed of self-appointed watchdogs has emerged online: anonymous collectives who use post-publication peer review platforms and social media to launch coordinated campaigns of criticism against researchers.
Some accusations may have merit. But often these campaigns are built on a foundation of institution and sheer volume – with real-world consequences: lost funding, mental health distress, and reputational harm.
One prominent analytical scientist, who wishes to remain anonymous, shared their experience of being subjected to such a campaign. Despite no formal investigation being deemed necessary by their institution, the public shaming had already taken its toll, including the withdrawal of speaking invitations.
It is in this context that the anonymous group ScienceGuardians has emerged – not to shield misconduct, they say, but to protect the integrity of the scientific process itself. What follows is their call to reclaim scientific integrity from those who have hijacked its banner. Their message: critique must be grounded in evidence, not ideology; and accountability must apply to all – including those who claim to be defending it.
Comments
Post a Comment