Scientific research increasingly requires international collaboration among scientists. Less is known, however, about the barriers that impede such collaboration. In this pioneering study, more than 9000 scientists from eight societies – the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Italy, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Turkey, and France – were surveyed to gauge scientists’ attitudes and experiences. While most scientists claimed international collaboration was important, their actual participation in such collaborations was much lower. We identified the prevalence rates of three types of barriers (political, logistical, and cultural) based on categories developed from previous work. In addition, we identified nine additional categories of barriers. Key barriers to collaboration that scientists identified included lack of funding for international work, restrictions on material and data sharing, and differences in academic standards. Respondents also complained about bias against scholars from emerging or developing countries. Our study highlights areas where efforts could be made to address policy issues, institutional barriers, and national biases to promote more productive collaboration in the global scientific community.

American sociology has not taken and does not take religion as seriously as it needs to in order to do the best sociology possible. Despite religion being an important and distinctive kind of practice in human social life, both historically and in the world today, American sociologists often neglect religion or treat it reductionistically. We explore several reasons for this negligence, focusing on key historical, conceptual, methodological, and institutional factors. We then turn to offer a number of proposals to help remedy American sociology's negligence of religion, advance the study of religion in particular, and enhance sociology's broader disciplinary capacity to improve our understanding and explanation of human social life. Our purpose in this analysis is to stimulate critical and constructive discussion about the significance of religion in human life and scholarly research on it.

Research on misconduct in science has largely focused on egregious violations such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Recent scholarship, however, calls for greater attention to forms of everyday misconduct and how scientists navigate ethical ambiguity when they are unable or unwilling to make formal accusations. Drawing on interview data from 251 physicists and biologists from both elite and non-elite universities and research institutes in the United States, United Kingdom, and India, we find that scientists are often reticent or unable to take formal action against many behaviors they perceive as unethical and irresponsible. As a result, they resort to informal gossip to warn colleagues of transgressors. Many express confidence that such pro-social gossip can serve as a means of social control by tarnishing the reputations of transgressors. Yet its effectiveness as a form of social control is limited, particularly when transgressors enjoy higher status than gossipers. We identify two types and three consequences of such gossip and assess the effectiveness of gossip as a means of social control. Finally, we consider the implications of our study for understanding and decreasing misconduct in science. La investigación sobre la falta de ética en la ciencia se ha centrado en las infracciones relacionadas con la mentira, la falsificación y el plagio. Recientes investigaciones hacen un llamamiento a prestar más atención sobre las formas de transgresión (o falta de ética) en el día a día y cómo los científicos navegan en la ambigüedad ética cuando no pueden o no están dispuestos a hacer una acusación formal. A través de los resultados de 251 entrevistas a físicos y biólogos de universidades de élite y de no élite, y de instituciones de investigación de EEUU, Inglaterra e India, encontramos que los científicos son a menudo reticentes o incapaces de realizar una acción formal contra muchos comportamientos que perciben como poco éticos e irresponsables. Como resultados, muchos recurren al rumor informal para avisar a los colegas sobre los infractores. Muchos expresan su confianza en que tales rumores pueden servir como un medio de control social al empañar la reputación de los transgresores. Sin embargo, su eficacia como forma de control social es limitada, sobre todo cuando los transgresores disfrutan de rango profesional superior al de los que lanzan el rumor. Identificamos dos tipos de rumores y tres consecuencias de dichos rumores y evaluamos la eficacia de los mismos como un medio de control social. Por último, consideramos las implicaciones de este estudio para entender estos procesos y generar la disminución de la falta de ética en la ciencia.