Responsibilities,Opportunities,and Challenges for Human Factors in the Digital Age

Research Integrity

Trends indicate a rise in various forms of research misconduct, such as falsification and fabrication of data, and questionable research practices, such as plagiarism and misrepresentation of research findings. These issues at least partially arise from the internet’s capacity to provide easy access to information, but also to influence that access.

Several journals have recently been scammed by fake guest editors. The journal Behaviour and Information Technology (Taylor and Francis) had to retract an entire special issue (Oransky, 2021). The special issue proposal provided bios and links to an impersonated researcher’s online profile but used a fake email address. The journal proceeded with the special issue, ostensibly due to the prestigious reputation of the impersonated guest editor. Interested authors contacted the provided email address, thinking they were contacting the actual researcher. The motives are not known, but presumably the fraudulent editor lured the authors into participating and undermined the peer-review process.

Another practice that erodes trust and cooperation among scientists is plagiarism, and its consequences are significantly detrimental to the scientific community. Minor plagiarism practices, such as verbatim copying of small amounts of text from sources can be detected through software. One study determined that the frequency of plagiarism in scientific papers using text-matching software was as much as 18% (Pupovac, 2021). Major forms of plagiarism that involve the reuse of ideas or research findings are undetectable by software. Such practices can only be identified by selecting reviewers who are deeply familiar with the research topic and are up-to-date on the latest work in the in area of particular relevance to the manuscript. It is therefore imperative that scientific journal editorial boards implement processes and procedures to validate the trustworthiness of published research.

Trust in Science

Science communication depends on trust. Science should transcend political ideologies and economic interests. Trust in science arises from the credibility attributed to the peer-review process (Weingart & Guenther, 2016). It is incumbent upon reviewers to diligently cull manuscripts for evidence of misconduct, omissions, experimental missteps, or incomplete disclosure of details. This makes peer review the intermediary of knowledge. Uncertainty of the integrity of a manuscript or journal article threatens confidence in the findings. Transparency in science reporting is often cited as a remedy to assure certainty and restore trust in scientific publications (Vazire, 2017). But transparency alone is not a substitute for diligent reviewer scrutiny.

Trust among investigators plays a central role in the process of science. When investigators make their work public in the form of scientific manuscripts, reviewers assume the completed work was carried out as described and led to the results reported. Researchers, on the other hand, trust that reviewers of their submitted manuscripts will not misuse the information (Grinnell, 2013). Scientific journals must maintain processes and procedures that help instill trust in the published work, in the interest of authors, reviewers, and the public.

Transparency in Research

Requiring transparency in data, study design plans, detailing all relevant studies attempted, data exclusion and transformations, and alternative models tested, helps to instill trust. Scientists are expected to fully describe experimental methods, the data collected, and the analyses conducted so that other scientists can replicate their studies. The peer-review process provides a check on adequate detailing of research procedures and methodologies. Some journals have established policies that require sharing original materials and making data publicly available. Such requirements have been met with unintended consequences, such as endless information requests, complaints, online harassment, distortion of findings, and even threats of violence (Lewandowsky & Bishop, 2016). Standards are needed for how authors should provide public access to and stewardship of their data, as well as for when requests for data amount to harassment or are otherwise unreasonable (Cicerone, 2010). The potential misuse of protected health information and violation of participant privacy must also be considered.

Communication with the Public

Science communication provides a critical link between the world of knowledge production and the public (Weingart & Guenther, 2016). Although the primary audience for science publications are fellow researchers, our field of human factors and ergonomics has a much larger constituency. The stated mission of Human Factors is the publication of “peer-reviewed scientific studies that explicitly yield design principles, enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.” Therefore, in addition to researchers, the consumers of our publications include industry, designers, engineers, programmers, students, the military, safety practitioners, and healthcare professionals, along with many other members of the public who seek a reliable source of authoritative information.

Online environments provide audiences with great opportunities to connect with science, and they are becoming more important for communicating science information that the public can reliably utilize (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). Social media are used not only to share new scientific insights but also to spread scientific misinformation. Social media’s potential for participation, democratization, and immediate two-way communication can be abused, and without a vigilant gatekeeper, it raises questions of trust. Huber, et al. (2019) found a positive relationship between social media news use and trust in science. Peer-reviewed science publications are the authoritative source for information and should engage with the public, but such exchanges must be done with caution.

A prime example of the failure to instill trust in science when communicating with the public is the impact of COVID-19. Preprint manuscripts and rapid publications through expedited reviews have been important resources for the medical science community, yet information that has not been properly vetted or opinion pieces without solid evidence may have severely damaged integrity of the science. In one example, an unreviewed preprint described clinical characteristics of 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, the largest cohort at the time, reporting that the incubation period was within a range from 0 to 24 days. In relaying this information, the press reported that COVID-19 incubation could stretch out to 24 days, albeit adding a disclaimer that the information was based on just one case from a non-peer-reviewed preprint. After the same manuscript was peer reviewed and accepted by the New England Journal of Medicine (Guan, et al., 2020), the reported incubation period had changed to an interquartile range of 1–7 days (Bagdasarian et al., 2020). Despite the reported disclaimers, a member of the public or the press may find it difficult to distinguish the difference between a preprint and a peer-reviewed article — and although the changes were a normal part of the peer review process, such a revision might be misinterpreted as a change of understanding or communicate uncertainty about the science.

It is important how scientific knowledge is conveyed when communicating with the public, and that knowledge has to be properly tailored for public consumption. Scientists often state knowledge derived from empirical research findings by emphasizing levels of uncertainty. Studies, however, have demonstrated that emphasizing uncertainty when projecting outcomes can erode public trust in some contexts. Conversely, downplaying uncertainty can raise trust in the short term, but when new scientific information is subsequently communicated that reverses projections, trust is tempered or even reduced (Kreps & Kriner, 2020). Breakwell and Jaspal (2021) found that trust in science and scientists had considerable influence upon willingness to comply with health protection advice, such as vaccination.

Goals for my tenure as Editor-in-Chief

The outgoing Editor-in-Chief, Patricia DeLucia, has done an exemplary job of increasing the journal’s impact and leaves Human Factors in excellent shape and well positioned among the most outstanding scientific journals in our field. I sincerely thank her for her steadfast leadership and generous support in making my transition as Editor-in-Chief go smoothly.

The editor’s role is to oversee and improve the operation of the review process performed by the Editorial Board, create new initiatives, and promote the journal. First and foremost, my goal as the new Editor-in-Chief is to preserve what is working well. Next is to advance the journal’s impact while safely navigating the perilous straits of the digital age. In addition to maintaining the highest scientific standards and ethical principles, my objectives include improving efficiency of the review process, expanding the journal’s impact, and obtaining greater reviewer commitment.

I plan to reach these goals by implementing policies that will reduce delays and gain efficiencies through the creation of a dashboard for continuous assessment and improvement of the review process. I will keep authors informed about editorial policies and requirements through active communication and outreach. I intend to responsibly use social media to increase visibility, stimulate discussion, and secure engagement of researchers and the greater human factors and ergonomics community about recently accepted articles. Maintaining a reliable pool of dedicated reviewers is a challenge, yet simply offering rewards for individual reviews has been shown ineffective (Gasparyan, et al., 2015). Instead, I propose implementing a system by which reviewers will be appointed to the editorial board once thay have met stated review criteria, as an incentive to foster better commitment from interested peer reviewers. I will work with the Editorial Board and the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society central office staff on planning, executing, and achieving these initiatives.