ill-informed sloppiness

< Previous | Next >


I don't quite understand "ill-informed sloppiness." Does it refer to "you yourself should be well aware of your own sloppiness (but you've failed to do so)" or "some else should actively monitor your sloppiness and then inform you (but s/he has failed to do so"?

We need to talk about systematic fraud

Software that uncovers suspicious papers will do little for a community that
does not confront organized research fraud, says Jennifer Byrne.

Most of the talk centres on unconscious bias and ill-informed sloppiness; conversations about intentional deception are more difficult. Unlike most faulty research practices, fraud actively evades detection.

  • kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    Basically, both terms are descriptions of unintentional mistakes. In the first case you had unconscious biases that affected your work. In the second case, you were sloppy in your work because you weren't fully aware of all the things you needed to be aware of to do your scientific work properly. It's simply about the source of the problem, not the lack of a solution.

    They are contrasting those kinds of mistakes with intentional fraud. They are saying that the focus of discussion has been on the unintentional mistakes, and presumably the reason for that is 1) people don't want to believe other people consciously commit fraud and 2) it's a lot more stressful to confront it because you are accusing people of something much worse. It's a messy business.
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >