Advancing data honesty in experimental biology

The ease with which scientific data, particularly certain types of raw data in experimental biology, can be fabricated without trace begs urgent attention. This is thought to be a widespread problem across the academic world, where published results are the major currency, incentivizing publication of (usually positive) results at the cost of lax scientific rigor and even fraudulent data. Although solutions to improve data sharing and methodological transparency are increasingly being implemented, the inability to detect dishonesty within raw data remains an inherent flaw in the way in which we judge research. We therefore propose that one solution would be the development of a non-modifiable raw data format that could be published alongside scientific results; a format that would enable data authentication from the earliest stages of experimental data collection. A further extension of this tool could allow changes to the initial original version to be tracked, so every reviewer and reader could follow the logical footsteps of the author and detect unintentional errors or intentional manipulations of the data. Were such a tool to be developed, we would not advocate its use as a prerequisite for journal submission; rather, we envisage that authors would be given the option to provide such authentication. Only authors who did not manipulate or fabricate their data can provide the original data without risking discovery, so the mere choice to do so already increases their credibility (much like 'honest signaling' in animals). We strongly believe that such a tool would enhance data honesty and encourage more reliable science.