Vigilantism in Science: The Need and the Risks

Jaime A Teixeira Da Silva

doi:10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p9

Abstract

Science is in a constant state of flux. In recent years, science and scientists have been coming under attack, and scrutiny, by internal and external skeptics and critics, as well as a potentially anti-science movement. Despite this fairly negative portrayal, the expected outcome is that science – and its players – will become more robust, more critical and thus more reliable and accountable, i.e., that there will be a positive light at the end of a tumultuous period of challenge, although we are still far from reaching that point. Part of this process involves individuals or groups, known or anonymous, who are actively seeking out faults or errors, to demonstrate that science and scientists, and journals and publishers, are flawed and that something needs to be done to rectify this. Very rarely are such individuals referred to as vigilantes, but in essence, this is in fact what they are: individuals who have taken the reigns of quality control where it has failed, or where it has perceived to have failed. Vigilantism, which tends to conjure images of mob squads or self-appointed policing figures, involves taking on community style group awareness and implementation of their own rules, morals and values, as they see fit. Vigilantism, in the era of post-publication peer review, has reached science. This paper examines the positive and negative role that vigilantism plays, or can play, in science. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p9

Highlights

Science is in a constant state of flux
Otto (2012) accurately states that “Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right – the classic definition of authoritarianism.”. It is precisely for this reason why greater attention is required by scientists to the anti-science movement, which can range from racists, sexists, creationists, economic conservatives and lobbyists (Rationalwiki, 2016), so as to be able to distinguish valid academic vigilantism that spurs accountability from vigilantism that aims purely to destroy science and scientists’ reputations
The introduction of the vigilante mentality of the post-publication peer review (PPPR) movement at PubPeer was further solidified by his comment “Legitimate authority demands consensual recognition and identity, both currently lacking for PubPeer.”

Summary

How Might Vigilantism have been Born in Science?

There is a growing and politically powerful anti-science movement (Otto 2012). One could say that this group of critics and skeptics may have led to the birth of the concept of vigilantism in science. There is a class of individuals, both scientists and not, who have seen that the channel for scientific discovery, namely scientific journals, may be more flawed than was originally thought Such flaws, which can range from imperfect reviews to unqualified peer reviewers or biased editorial decisions (Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki 2015a), or the expansion of academically suspect journals (Eriksson and Helgesson 2016), can lead to less than perfect science being published, and undermine trust in science and in its reported discoveries. Otto (2012) accurately states that “Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right – the classic definition of authoritarianism.” It is precisely for this reason why greater attention is required by scientists to the anti-science movement, which can range from racists, sexists, creationists, economic conservatives and lobbyists (Rationalwiki, 2016), so as to be able to distinguish valid academic vigilantism that spurs accountability from vigilantism that aims purely to destroy science and scientists’ reputations In the current anti-science movement, such individuals are referred to as science watchdogs, a topic will be briefly explored in the letter. Otto (2012) accurately states that “Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right – the classic definition of authoritarianism.” And it is precisely for this reason why greater attention is required by scientists to the anti-science movement, which can range from racists, sexists, creationists, economic conservatives and lobbyists (Rationalwiki, 2016), so as to be able to distinguish valid academic vigilantism that spurs accountability from vigilantism that aims purely to destroy science and scientists’ reputations

How did Vigilantism Enter the Scientific Conversation?

What is Scientific Vigilantism?

The Pro’s and Con’s of Scientific Vigilantism