Reliable Information

When it comes to writing a research paper or other piece of uni work, it's vital that you use reliable sources in order to ensure that what you are asserting is backed up by [[credible]] evidence. That said, it's not always easy to identify [[reliable sources...]].

*What are biases?* - By biases - especially "implicit biases" - we mean the automatic thoughts or feelings that may influence our behaviours. - Biases are (often problematic) associations which we have internalised without realising, and tend to reflect the culture of which we are part of. - We would likely reject stereotypes and biases in our *explicit* beliefs and values. That is, we *say* we believe in fair treatment, but we might still unconciously treat people in biased, unequal ways. <a href="javascript: window.history.back();">Okay, thanks.</a>

...see this Twitter user, demanding a fact check on satirical news comedy site The Onion: <img src="https://library-isr-dev.group.shef.ac.uk/questioning/voices/images/chimp.jpg" alt="Tweet reading 'NASA announces plan to launch chimpanzee into the sun', and tweet responding 'Could someone please have Snopes fact check this?'" width="80%" height="80%"> [[How could they possibly believe that headline?!->satire]] [[Well, at least they thought to get a fact check...->satire]]

Or this user, criticising an intentionally perplexing tweet from Bantshire University - a fictional institution parodying British universities. <img src="https://library-isr-dev.group.shef.ac.uk/questioning/voices/images/bantshire.jpg" alt="Tweet reading 'GUIDELINES: You must wear mandatory optional face coverings within university buildings at all times, subject to personal preference. Failure to comply encroaches on your freedom to put others at risk.' and replying tweet 'What does mandatory optional subject to person preference mean? This type of communication is utterly confusing.'" width="75%" height="75%"> [[To be honest, I might have believed that was real.->real]] [[*I'd never fall for that. I'm basically an internet pro* 😎->pro]]

Hey, it happens to the best of us. In a world of unbelievable truths and believable untruths, finding reliable information [[can be very tricky...]]

Your confidence is admirable! Maybe *you* should be [[the one teaching me.->can be very tricky...]]

These were some dramatic (and silly) examples, but the point is that you can't get too complacent when looking at information. While those sites make it clear that they are satirical, other sources might intentionally try to earn trust which they don't quite deserve. You need to exercise good critical thinking and evaluation skills at all times when finding sources for your university work. ...That said, if you're too picky about the kinds of sources you consider, you could miss out on hearing some [[truly interesting voices->finding sources for your university work]].

**Instructions** - Click the **blue links** to progress through the tutorial. - Click **dotted underline links** to read definitions. - Use the **back button** in your browser to return to a previous passage. - [[Restart tutorial->Restart]]

Except otherwise noted, this work by the The University of Sheffield Library is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

*What does "credible" mean?* - The Cambridge Dictionary defines "credible" as meaning "able to be believed or trusted". Credible sources are, therefore, sources that offer information which you can believe and trust to be true. <a href="javascript: window.history.back();">Okay, thanks.</a>

For example, if you spend any amount of time on social media (or the internet in general), you'll know that amongst a lot of great content, there can be a whole load of mistruths, misunderstandings, sponsored material, biased sources, sneaky advertising, political arguing, trolling, memes, satire, and all kinds of "fake news". Not everyone is as good at spotting these things as others. [[For example...]]

Let's explore the idea of reliable sources more deeply. First off, let me ask you: which of these types of information sources do you think is **most reliable**? - [[Journal articles->a]] - [[News websites->b]] - [[Social media posts->c]] - [[Academic books->d]]

But what gives a creator authority? This is a topic discussed in the Academic Authority section. If you haven't already read that, check it out after you're finished here! [[Continue here.->a]] Select a different section.->selection

Journal articles are a sensible choice - they're typically considered some of the most reliable sources of current thinking within a discipline. - They tend to be published by [[authoritative experts]] in an area. - They're normally transparent about the research methods used. - If an article has been [[peer reviewed->peer review]], other academics have read it through to check that the claims made are evidence-based and credible. That said, peer review doesn't guarantee that all the claims made by a paper are true, or that the paper is beyond critique. [[Moving on...->a-on]]

News sites are varied, aren't they? - They can be an excellent source, informing us of facts and events as they happen. News sources can offer insights that scholarly sources might never provide, or that might take a long time to get published. For example, people’s reactions, opinions, and the popular attitudes surrounding an event. - ...But news sources can also be spinning information in line with their own political or social agendas. For a UK example, just look at how stories are presented by the BBC vs. The Guardian vs. The Telegraph. It's always a good idea to look at how multiple news sources cover a story to see how facts are presented in different ways. [[Moving on...->b-on]]

Social media posts, that's interesting. - You could argue that social media is "reliable" because its so direct. Posts from sites like Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. can provide first-hand quotes, videos and information straight from the people most involved in an event. This information can be accurate, timely, and useful. - But on the other hand, as we mentioned earlier, it can be hard to identify *who* the trustworthy users are on such vast platforms. If you're using social media as a source for academic work, you may need to be especially critical of what you use and how you use it. - If you curate your feeds, social media can be an effective platform for keeping up to date with the latest developments in an area, from both academic *and* non-academic voices. These easily accessible platforms can allow more diverse voices to become well known within the academic and non-academic spheres. This is great, and we'll talk more about this in a little while. [[Moving on...->c-on]]

Good old books - a classic source of information. But how reliable are they? - While "popular", non-scholarly books are intended to entertain or inform in a broad way, academic books are typically written to share research on a specific topic in some depth. - The author may be an [[authoritative expert->authoritative experts]] in their field, and might have had their book published by a university press or professional association. However, a reputable publisher does not necessarily make a book inherently reliable. - Like journal articles, they will include references and citations. While not [[peer reviewed->peer review]], you might be able to find formal book reviews of a title written by other academics in the discipline, offering a scholarly evaluation of the text. - Material in books can become out-of-date - even quite rapidly in some fields as new research supersedes what's been published. [[Moving on...->d-on]]

Social media posts aren't a typical source for academic research, and are often considered rather unreliable. - As we mentioned earlier, it can be hard to identify *who* the trustworthy users are on such vast platforms. If you're using social media as a source for academic work, you may need to be especially critical of what you use and how you use it. - That said, you could argue that social media is "reliable" in a sense because its so direct. Posts from sites like Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. can provide first-hand quotes, videos and information straight from the people most involved in an event. This information can be accurate, timely, and useful. - If you curate your feeds, social media can be an effective platform for keeping up to date with the latest developments in an area, from both academic *and* non-academic voices. These easily accessible platforms can allow more diverse voices to become well known within the academic and non-academic spheres. This is great, and we'll talk more about this in a little while. So out of these choices, [[journal articles are the most reliable, and social media the least...->tradvnew]]

Good old books - a classic source of information. But how reliable are they? - While "popular", non-scholarly books are intended to entertain or inform in a broad way, academic books are typically written to share research on a specific topic in some depth. - The author may be an [[authoritative expert->authoritative experts]] in their field, and might have had their book published by a university press or professional association. However, a reputable publisher does not necessarily make a book inherently reliable. - Like journal articles, they will include references and citations. While not [[peer reviewed->peer review]], you might be able to find formal book reviews of a title written by other academics in the discipline, offering a scholarly evaluation of the text. - Material in books can become out-of-date - even quite rapidly in some fields as new research supersedes what's been published. So out of these choices, [[journal articles are the most reliable, and academic books the least...->alt]]

Journal articles? That's an interesting choice. Typically, these are considered some of the most reliable sources of current thinking within a discipline. - They tend to be published by [[authoritative experts]] in an area. - They're normally transparent about the research methods used. - If an article has been [[peer reviewed->peer review]], other academics have read it through to check that the claims made are evidence-based and credible. That said, peer review doesn't guarantee that all the claims made by a paper are true, or that the paper is beyond critique. So out of these choices, [[news websites are the most reliable, and journal articles the least...->alt]]

Social media posts aren't a typical source for academic research, and are often considered rather unreliable. - As we mentioned earlier, it can be hard to identify *who* the trustworthy users are on such vast platforms. If you're using social media as a source for academic work, you may need to be especially critical of what you use and how you use it. - That said, you could argue that social media is "reliable" in a sense because its so direct. Posts from sites like Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. can provide first-hand quotes, videos and information straight from the people most involved in an event. This information can be accurate, timely, and useful. - If you curate your feeds, social media can be an effective platform for keeping up to date with the latest developments in an area, from both academic *and* non-academic voices. These easily accessible platforms can allow more diverse voices to become well known within the academic and non-academic spheres. This is great, and we'll talk more about this in a little while. So out of these choices, [[news websites are the most reliable, and social media the least...->alt]]

Good old books - a classic source of information. But how reliable are they? - While "popular", non-scholarly books are intended to entertain or inform in a broad way, academic books are typically written to share research on a specific topic in some depth. - The author may be an [[authoritative expert->authoritative experts]] in their field, and might have had their book published by a university press or professional association. However, a reputable publisher does not necessarily make a book inherently reliable. - Like journal articles, they will include references and citations. While not [[peer reviewed->peer review]], you might be able to find formal book reviews of a title written by other academics in the discipline, offering a scholarly evaluation of the text. - Material in books can become out-of-date - even quite rapidly in some fields as new research supersedes what's been published. So out of these choices, [[news websites are the most reliable, and academic books the least...->alt]]

Journal articles? That's an interesting choice. Typically, these are considered some of the most reliable sources of current thinking within a discipline. - They tend to be published by [[authoritative experts]] in an area. - They're normally transparent about the research methods used. - If an article has been [[peer reviewed->peer review]], other academics have read it through to check that the claims made are evidence-based and credible. That said, peer review doesn't guarantee that all the claims made by a paper are true, or that the paper is beyond critique. So out of these choices, [[social media posts are the most reliable, and journal articles the least...->alt]]

Good old books - a classic source of information. But how reliable are they? - While "popular", non-scholarly books are intended to entertain or inform in a broad way, academic books are typically written to share research on a specific topic in some depth. - The author may be an [[authoritative expert->authoritative experts]] in their field, and might have had their book published by a university press or professional association. However, a reputable publisher does not necessarily make a book inherently reliable. - Like journal articles, they will include references and citations. While not [[peer reviewed->peer review]], you might be able to find formal book reviews of a title written by other academics in the discipline, offering a scholarly evaluation of the text. - Material in books can become out-of-date - even quite rapidly in some fields as new research supersedes what's been published. So out of these choices, [[social media posts are the most reliable, and academic books the least...->alt]]

Journal articles? That's an interesting choice. Typically, these are considered some of the most reliable sources of current thinking within a discipline. - They tend to be published by [[authoritative experts]] in an area. - They're normally transparent about the research methods used. - If an article has been [[peer reviewed->peer review]], other academics have read it through to check that the claims made are evidence-based and credible. That said, peer review doesn't guarantee that all the claims made by a paper are true, or that the paper is beyond critique. So out of these choices, [[academic books are the most reliable, and journal articles the least...->alt]]

Social media posts aren't a typical source for academic research, and are often considered rather unreliable. - As we mentioned earlier, it can be hard to identify *who* the trustworthy users are on such vast platforms. If you're using social media as a source for academic work, you may need to be especially critical of what you use and how you use it. - That said, you could argue that social media is "reliable" in a sense because its so direct. Posts from sites like Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. can provide first-hand quotes, videos and information straight from the people most involved in an event. This information can be accurate, timely, and useful. - If you curate your feeds, social media can be an effective platform for keeping up to date with the latest developments in an area, from both academic *and* non-academic voices. These easily accessible platforms can allow more diverse voices to become well known within the academic and non-academic spheres. This is great, and we'll talk more about this in a little while. So out of these choices, [[academic books are the most reliable, and social media posts the least...->tradvnew]]

You've picked some options I wouldn't necessarily expect! For the most part, we tend to assume that 'traditional' academic formats such as an articles or books are going to be more reliable (and appropriate for most uni work) than more modern, changeable sources. However, it's important to [[question these assumptions->reliable-branch]].

Your choices are pretty much what I'd have picked too. It's fairly safe to assume that a 'traditional' academic format such as an article or book is going to be more reliable (and appropriate for most uni work) than a modern, changeable source. ...but can we [[question this assumption->reliable-branch]]?

So we've got journal articles as our most reliable. Now which would you say is *least* reliable? - ~~Journal articles~~ - [[News websites->b1]] - [[Social media posts->c1]] - [[Academic books->d1]]

Now which would you say is least reliable? - [[Journal articles->a2]] - ~~News websites~~ - [[Social media posts->c2]] - [[Academic books->d2]]

Now which would you say is least reliable? - [[Journal articles->a3]] - [[News websites->b3]] - ~~Social media posts~~ - [[Academic books->d3]]

Now which would you say is least reliable? - [[Journal articles->a4]] - [[News websites->b4]] - [[Social media posts->c4]] - ~~Academic books~~

Just because a piece of information has been published in a traditional academic format doesn't guarantee that it is 100% reliable. Likewise, just because a piece of information *hasn't* been published in a traditional format doesn't mean that it is unreliable, unimportant or useless to your work. This leads us down two routes of thought, considering the pros and cons of... [[*'Traditional'* Academic Research Publishing->traditional]] and [[*'Alternative'* Information Sources->alternative]]

Social media can be an effective and useful platform for keeping up to date with the latest developments in an area from both academic or non-academic voices. And it can allow more diverse voices to become well known within the academic and non-academic spheres. However Social media can be democratic and inclusive in a very superficial way because online attention and popularity may reflect entrenched social hierarchies. [[creative media]]

Can you think of alternative information sources used more easily by members of marginalised and non-mainstream communities and individuals? Non-standard sources such as digital and creative media? They can include ephemera, visual arts objects, documentaries, podcasts, poetry collections, and other audio-visual media sources. These are primary sources which are first-hand accounts of an issue or subject that were created by people directly connected to them. They can serve as original sources of information without any layer of interpretation or analysis. [[grey lit]]

Grey literature which is produced outside academic publishing can also be useful as it provides information about marginal or emerging disciplines that are not addressed by the traditional academic publishers. In some applied social science fields such as social work, public health, and law, trade and professional magazines and journals which are not strictly considered to be academic, are crucial in disseminating discipline-specific practices and applications. [[reliable conclusions]]

The context and purpose of your use of a specific information source is important in determining what is suitable and relevant. You may need to use different standards or criteria to accordingly evaluate different information sources. <div class="key"> You've reached a conclusion. Would you like to read more about Reliable Information? [[Yes - let me pick another topic.->reliable-branch]] No - I've finished this section. Let me visit another section.->selection Let me out! I've finished reading this whole tutorial.->Tutorial Conclusion </div>

Not all academic discourse happens within traditional published academic sources. Can researching non-academic sources be valuable? They can provide more accessible channels for marginalised voices. [[soc media]]

"Publish or perish" is a phrase which describes the pressure to publish academic works in order to enjoy a successful academic career. Producing many notable works can help a scholar gain prizes, promotions, job opportunities, job security, and further research funding. Conversely, *failing* to publish frequently can hurt a scholar's prospects and lead to a loss of their position or funding. [[Why's that the case?->perish2]]

Some academic sources may be less reliable because they lack impartiality, and some research may be unreliable because it's biased for or against a certain outcome. There are many [[potential sources and forms of bias->fund]] - even within those traditional academic sources that should adhere to ethical principles of neutrality, transparency, and legitimacy.

Potential solution is open access/science Refer to other section/"have you already read this?" OA means: Results become more transparent and reliable OA means: Greater diversity of voices; access for under resourced communities Link to extra OA resource

*What are journal rankings?* - Journal rankings are intended as a way to evaluate the impact, quality and prestige of academic journals. - Different measures or metrics can be used to judge journals against one another. For example, one of the most well-known metrics is the "Impact Factor", which looks at how many citations the articles published in a given journal get on average. *Why use journal rankings?* - Authors might use these rankings to decide where to publish their work in order to gain the most readership and/or prestige. - Academic departments and universities might use journal rankings as a way to judge the quality of the publications their staff (or prospective new staff) produces. <a href="javascript: window.history.back();">Okay, thanks.</a>

*What is peer review?* - "Peer review" describes a specific quality control process, in which experts in the field assess the research to decide if it is suitable for publication. - Peer reviewers evaluate the methods used, the reliability of the findings, and the writing style. - Peer review is carried out by academic volunteers who are not paid by publishers, but are compensated by their institution or university wages. - It's a subjective and imperfect process. Different reviewers will inevitably have different opinions on a paper's strengths and weaknesses. They may also be affected by [[various biases->biases definition]]. <a href="javascript: window.history.back();">Okay, thanks.</a>

Here's an interesting case to consider. In 2011, the influential journal *Science* published a report by Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel titled *“Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination”*. This paper received plenty of attention due its [[fascinating findings->reliable2]]: that a trash-filled environment can bring out racist tendencies in the people occupying it.

I know, right? Watch this short video clip below, where Dr Rachael Ainsworth questions how this could have occurred: <iframe width="100%" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c-bemNZ-IqA?clip=UgkxWmWXWzzDmEhhwHzuvlW9xFTjsRN92M10&clipt=ELObBxj9lgo" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe> There are [[three great points->reliable4]] raised here.

The first is that factors like power, prestige, or experience do not entirely guarantee that a researcher's output is trustworthy. This is a topic we discuss in the Academic Authority section - check it out once you're done here! The second point is that our systems of scientific scrutiny don't always function very well. If you've already looked at the Accessing Research section, you'll know about some of the issues associated with [[peer review]], for example. Similarly, it doesn't help that data usually isn't made publicly available. Publishing datasets alongside the relevant paper(s) would provide more transparency and integrity. Many scholars advocate for this approach alongside the wider [[Open Access movement->open access]]. The final subject Dr Ainsworth introduces is something known as "[[publish or perish]]".

*What is "Open Access"?* According to <a class="external" href="https://www.openaccess.nl/en/what-is-open-access" target="_blank">openaccess.nl</a>, open access is > a broad international movement that seeks to grant free and open online access to academic information, such as publications and data. A publication can be called 'open access' when > there are no financial, legal or technical barriers to accessing it - that is to say, when anyone can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search for and search within the information, or use it in education or in any other way within the legal agreements. This is in opposition to the traditional 'closed' model, where readers can only access information through a subscription (which is usually paid by a library). <a href="javascript: window.history.back();">Okay, thanks.</a>

However, it was later discovered that Stapel had committed scientific fraud. The paper described environments which didn't exist, and used data which was manipulated or fabricated. In fact, it turned out that his misconduct stretched back for many years and affected dozens of his many publications. [[Wow, that's terrible!->reliable3]] [[I'm kind of impressed... How did he get away with that for so long?->reliable3]]

*What is public research funding?* - "Publicly funded" research activities are those which are financed by tax-payer money, usually via a government. - In practice, this means that a government provides money to universities, research centres, and other institutions, which then gets passed on to the researchers who compete for funding via grant application processes. - Countries such as the <a class="external" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending " target="_blank">United States, China, Germany, and the UK</a>, can afford to put billions towards public research. But of course, not every nation has that capacity. Aspiring researchers in lower income countries may struggle to access funding from both public and private sources. *How does the UK publicly fund research?* - In 2018 the public body UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) was established bringing together nine organisations into one unified body. - Previously, the funding and coordination of academic research and innovation was done by individual research councils specialising in different disciplines. - Currently UKRI is the UK’s largest public funder of research and innovation. It provides funding to individual researchers, businesses, universities, NHS bodies, charities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other institutions. <a href="javascript: window.history.back();">Okay, thanks.</a>

Sponsorship by private companies, in particular, can lead to conflicts of interest. Imagine that your sponsor is selling a product. They fund your research in the hopes your results will endorse their product. Unfortunately for them, your fair and reliable research findings do *not* favour their product - they might even cast doubts over its safety or efficacy. Would the sponsoring business be happy about this? [[Clearly not.->fund7]]

It's complicated. There are good reasons that universities and institutions push for academics to publish research. For example, it ensures that academics are constantly engaged with relevant new work in their field, and are contributing their own work to it, thus holding them accountable. Publishing and reviewing processes should mean that this research is done [[rigorously, accurately, and honestly->perish3]].

It also means that findings are shared, so that others can build upon existing research, expanding our collective knowledge. The existence of publications fosters communication between experts. Publications are also a way for academics to [[demonstrate talent and establish a positive reputation->perish4]], even leading to their being considered an authority in their discipline.

This in turn benefits the reputation of an academic's sponsoring institution, which can attract more students, staff and funding. (Can you see how this becomes circular? Uni of X has a good rep, so productive researchers move there, they publish lots of great research, increasing the good rep of the uni... and repeat) For these reasons, <a class="external" href="https://find.shef.ac.uk/permalink/f/98odl8/TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1038_465860a" target="_blank">many institutions use publication-related metrics</a> as a criteria to help review and reward their staff's performance. [[But let me guess - "publish or perish" culture has a load of disadvantages too?->perish5]]

Absolutely. For example, the pressure to publish could cause academics to churn out poor-quality research - or in extreme cases like Diederik Stapel, even outright falsified research. It can also lead to other unethical practices, such as professors <a class="external" href="https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jun/05/my-professor-demand-to-be-listed-author-on-research-paper" target="_blank">fradulently claiming authorship</a>of papers they haven't really contributed to. With less pressure on them, academics could instead develop their work more thoughtfully and rigorously over longer periods of time. And if their university role includes a teaching component, they'd also be able to [[focus more time on educating students->perish6]], too.

Let's dive into the issues around traditional academic publishing by posing a question: How could an information source such as a [[journal article be unreliable->research funding]]?

[[alt sources]]

Another crucial problem with the "publish or perish" culture is that it can unintentionally hinder the expression of [[diverse and under-represented voices->perish7]].

Women, for example, face several obstables. In a <a class="external" href="https://find.shef.ac.uk/permalink/f/98odl8/TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_29293499" target="_blank">thought-provoking 2018 article focused on natural sciences publishing</a>, the authors discuss how female academics: - Have fewer publications, especially where they're listed as lead author, which may be linked to how women... - Achieve less seniority and advance more slowly in their research careers compared to men (or even drop out entirely <a class="external" href="https://digitalcommons.assumption.edu/honorstheses/100" target="_blank">due to many factors</a> such as unwelcoming environments, maternity leave, hiring biases, etc.) - Attract less citations than their male peers for many reasons, which we discuss over in the Academic Authority section. [[Minority groups->perish8]] are similarly disadvantaged.

Like women, ethnic minority groups face citational injustice (again, see the Academic Authority section). "Publish or perish" culture also impacts the ability of researchers from countries in the global south to gain the recognition they deserve. Since the Northern (or Western, or Eurocentric) world is the one setting the criteria for research excellence - including the need to publish frequently in [[highly-ranked journals->journal ranking]] - Southern scholars need to [[conform to those standards->perish9]] to achieve success.

Let's consider Africa, which although comprising 12.5% of the world’s population (<a class="external" href="https://www.elsevier.com/connect/africa-generates-less-than-1-of-the-worlds-research-data-analytics-can-change-that" target="_blank">as of 2018</a>), accounts for less than 1% of global research output. As <a class="external" href="https://find.shef.ac.uk/permalink/f/98odl8/TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2661728875" target="_blank">this excellent 2022 paper argues</a>, >the ‘publish or perish’ concept threatens the progress of an African academic and undermines the contributions of Africans as teachers, administrators, scholars, and researchers in the service of their communities. To climb the academic ladder, African scholars are pressured to publish in "high-quality" journals which are overwhelmingly Northern and written in English. This means they can end up unfairly "engrossed in meeting the requirements set by the North", or struggling with language barriers. Furthermore, publishing "the enormous number of publications" needed for career advancement comes at a hefty cost that is "not always feasible to low-paid academics in Africa’s [[resource-poor countries->perish10]]".

African scholars may feel discouraged from researching issues which are valuable to the development of their nation(s), since Northern journals may be less interested in Afrocentric research. If they do publish in those journals, they may then find that these studies of national important are not even accessible to their target audience since the copyright rests with a commercial Northern publisher. This <a class="external" href="https://theconversation.com/we-think-theres-a-better-way-to-assess-the-research-of-african-academics-heres-how-132287">"impairs the development of rigorous science and limits the exploration and expansion of indigenous knowledge for regional advancement"</a>.

Both inside and outside of Africa, "publish or perish" culture undermines the production of research which could developmentally benefit the Global South, and which Southern researchers are therefore interested in pursuing. For example, research into topics such as <a class="external" href="https://find.shef.ac.uk/permalink/f/98odl8/TN_cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A522355482" target="_blank">oil-palm disease or Latin American business history</a> is highly relevant to the environmental and socioeconomic development of Latin American countries. However, these topics don't fit into the scope of mainstream journals, and must instead be published in journals perceived as lower quality. This means those valuable findings will receive [[less recognition and investment->perish11]].

So by using publishing as a proxy for excellence, we distort how and why knowledge is produced, and in some ways limit who can produce it. [[Huh, this has been pretty interesting!->p12]] [[Okay, wow, this is a lot to take in.->p13]]

I'm glad you think so! These are complex, interconnected issues which can be hard to untangle... but it's important that we try to see things from [[varied viewpoints->r-conc-a]].

Honestly, I agree. These are complex, interconnected issues which can be hard to untangle... but it's important that we try to see things from [[varied viewpoints->r-conc-a]].

As a student (and as a inquisitive individual), you should always apply critical judgement when doing research for your university work. Ask yourself some big questions: - Are traditional academic sources always reliable? - Does the publish or perish culture incentivise quantity over quality, to the detriment of innovation and diversity? - How can we value research which achieves different types of impact, such as social or political impact? [[And remember:->reliable conclusions]]

As a student (and as a inquisitive individual), you should always apply critical judgement when doing research for your university work. Ask yourself some big questions: - Can you utilise non-mainstream sources for your work? - [[And remember:->reliable conclusions]]

For example, problems could occur during: - Data collection (methodology) - such as using a population sample that over- or under-represents certain types of people; or using faulty laboratory equipment which takes false measurements; or asking leading questions in your research interviews. - Data analysis (results) - such as deleting data points that don't support your hypothesis; or fabricating data; or applying the wrong kinds of testing and analysis tools. [[Or also during...->fund2]]

- Data interpretation (findings or discusson) - such as overgeneralising results to populations beyond the sample; or incorrectly inferring causality ("X causes Y"); or downplaying certain factors in your conclusions. And if you ever achieve this stage, during: - Publication - such as not publishing a study that has negative/null results; or only publishing results that are beneficial to your research funder; or conversely, having your results blocked because they contradict the interests of a private funder. Hopefully you won't run afoul of these issues during your own projects, but you should remain aware that biases like these can also affect the papers you read. Lets think about those last biases which concern published authors, specifically the [[biases related to funding->fund3]].

That's great! In which case, you probably know first-hand how hard it is to formally collect and analyse data in ways that [[avoid bias->fund1]].

Not a problem. It's likely that you'll be asked to perform your own independent research project(s) sometime during your studies. Although the exact methods you use will vary depending on your discipline, you'll learn a lot about formal data collection and analysis, and how [[biases can creep into your work->fund1]].

By the way - have you ever done a research project involving your own data collection and analysis? [[Yeah, I've done something like that.->fund-a]] [[No, I haven't done that kind of project yet.->fund-b]]

How is it that private companies and businesses could influence the reliablity of academic research? To answer this, we need to learn about how research is funded. For an academic to start a research project, they need two key things. The first is a great idea. The second is the [[resources to execute that idea->fund4]] - such as equipment, facilities, staff, and time.

While a university job provides access to some facilities (like labs and library books), and a uni salary keeps food on the table, a financial grant is needed to cover the many costs incurred during a research project. These grants can [[come from many places->fund5]].

For example: - Governments, such as the UK government. This is known as [[public funding]]. - Non-profit organisations and charities, such as Cancer Research UK. - Special interest groups, such as a group interested in climate change ecology; artificial intelligence; or arts & wellbeing. - Industry and the private sector, such as pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. There are [[inherent discriminations->fund6]] which can be induced by these different types of funding bodies.

There are many cases where private sponsors have tried to repress results. For example, as Lisa Bero describes in <a class="external" href="https://theconversation.com/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes-last-119164" target="_blank">*The Conversation*</a>: > In the 1980s, <a class="external" href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/415402" target="_blank">a pharmaceutical company funded</a> a researcher to compare their brand’s thyroid drug to its generic counterparts. The researcher found the generics were as good as the branded products. > The funder then went to great lengths to suppress the publication of her findings, including taking legal action against her and her university. In other cases, sponsors have actively worked to [[manipulate results->fund8]] which do get published.

Since the 1950s, for example, the tobacco industry has famously sought to control and exploit smoking research. When a 1981 Japanese study proved an association between passive (or "second-hand") smoking and lung cancer, <a class="external" href="https://find.shef.ac.uk/permalink/f/98odl8/TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1777758101" target="_blank">tobacco companies funded a new study</a> to refute those findings. They concealed their extensive involvement in designing, running and writing up the research. The conclusions of this study (surprise, surprise: that smoke exposure somehow did *not* increase risk of lung cancer) were then cited by the tobacco industry as they fought against government regulations. [[That's outrageous! Does this kind of manipulation still happen today?->fund9]]

Today we employ some logical countermeasures to try and prevent funding bias. For example, requirements for academics to clearly disclose their relationships with sponsors when submitting manuscripts (<a class="external" href="https://find.shef.ac.uk/permalink/f/98odl8/TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2552742707" target="_blank">Although some argue</a> that this is of limited effectiveness.) Universities may also enforce policies to prevent funders from dictating how research is conducted and published. However, sponsorship bias does still influence research today... though [[perhaps more covertly->fund10]].

For example, <a class="external" href="https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/" target="_blank">Coca-Cola</a> has allegedly diverted attention away from the harms of their high-sugar drinks by financing research which blames a lack of exercise for obesity... which is at odds with <a class="external" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html" target="_blank">many studies</a> indicating that exercise has a minimal effect on weight compared to making dietary changes. In this manner, corporations can influence the general research agenda in order to improve their position. [[Anything we can do about this?->fund11]]

A more effective way to prevent funding bias could be to take a firewall approach, in which private businesses contribute to a general fund but can't choose which specific studies to sponsor. Additionally, an advantage of the [[open access]] and open science agenda (which favours uploading protocols and data alongside papers) is that it can help expose [[industry interference in research->fund12]].

...But of course, funding bias is just one problem that could make academic information unreliable. There are broader issues with [[the system and culture->reliable1]] of academic research — issues that push people into making bad choices, and issues that stifle voices around the world.