Constructive and obsessive criticism in science

Abstract

Social media and new tools for engagement offer democratic platforms for enhancing constructive scientific criticism which had previously been limited. Constructive criticism can now be massive, timely and open. However, new options have also enhanced obsessive criticism. Obsessive criticism tends to focus on one or a handful of individuals and their work, often includes ad hominem aspects, and the critics often lack field‐specific skills and technical expertise. Typical behaviours include: repetitive and persistent comments (including sealioning), lengthy commentaries/tweetorials/responses often longer than the original work, strong degree of moralizing, distortion of the underlying work, argumentum ad populum, calls to suspend/censor/retract the work or the author, guilt‐by‐association, reputational tarnishing, large gains in followers specifically through attacks, finding and positing sensitive personal information, anonymity or pseudonymity, social media campaigning, and unusual ratio of criticism to pursuit of one's research agenda. These behaviours may last months or years. Prevention and treatment options may include awareness, identifying and working around aggravating factors, placing limits on the volume by editors, constructive pairing of commissioned editorials, incorporation of some hot debates from unregulated locations such as social media or PubPeer to the pages of scientific journals, preserving decency and focusing on evidence and arguments and avoiding personal statements, or (in some cases) ignoring. We need more research on the role of social media and obsessive criticism on an evolving cancel culture, the social media credibility, the use/misuse of anonymity and pseudonymity, and whether potential interventions from universities may improve or further weaponize scientific criticism.

Twitter and Mastodon presence of highly-cited scientists

“…for expression opinions and debates versus more structured activities, such as education [16]. We also made no effort to judge the veracity, tone, sentiment and constructiveness (or lack thereof) of the tweets [17], since this is extremely difficult to do for people covering such a wide range of expertise. Even top-cited scientists may not necessarily use Twitter for scientific communication, but for more personal tastes and preferences.…”

Taking care of science: Towards better communication and societal engagement

“…But, without compromising our principles, and while keeping our own activities under permanent vigilance, we need to be much more active in engaging and communicating; making allies and presenting the best truth possible using the tools of scientific research we know work. 14 Scientists, Scientific Societies or Journals need not be full time activists (that is also a mistake), but engage others in their communities and networks, however, small. Otherwise, activists of all kinds (with all due respect to their causes) will fulfil that role.…”

“…But it cannot be denied that there may be other ivory towers, those inside our heads; the principles and disciplinary notions we have internalized and often use, even when we know they are not full proof and cannot solve everything. But, without compromising our principles, and while keeping our own activities under permanent vigilance, we need to be much more active in engaging and communicating; making allies and presenting the best truth possible using the tools of scientific research we know work 14 . Scientists, Scientific Societies or Journals need not be full time activists (that is also a mistake), but engage others in their communities and networks, however, small.…”

Radiopharmaceutical need between the clinic and regulatory agencies: how philosophy could explain 'the road taken'

“…Moreover, he emphasized the fundamental role of the applied methodology. Consider how, after a hundred years, with the pandemic explosion, the methodological aspect for constructive criticism in science is indeed more crucial than ever, since social media and platforms, despite the theoretical possibility of playing a positive role in promoting constructive criticism, actually largely contributed to the increase obsessive and misinformed criticism [7].…”