Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors' careers

Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed.

METHODS

Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures.

RESULTS

First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures.

CONCLUSION

Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry.

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System

As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.

Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.

Systemic Obstacles to Addressing Research Misconduct in Higher Education: A Case Study

Several widely publicized incidents of academic research misconduct, combined with the politicization of the role of science in public health and policy discourse (e.g., COVID, immunizations) threaten to undermine faith in the integrity of empirical research. Researchers often maintain that peer-review and study replication allow the field to self-police and self-correct; however, stark disparities between official reports of academic research misconduct and self-reports of academic researchers, specifically with regard to data fabrication, belie this argument. Further, systemic imperatives in academic settings often incentivize institutional responses that focus on minimizing reputational harm rather than the impact of fabricated data on the integrity of extant and future research.

A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles

In this article, we present a methodology which takes as input a collection of retracted articles, gathers the entities citing them, characterizes such entities according to multiple dimensions (disciplines, year of publication, sentiment, etc.), and applies a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the collected values. The methodology is composed of four phases: (1) identifying, retrieving, and extracting basic metadata of the entities which have cited a retracted article, (2) extracting and labeling additional features based on the textual content of the citing entities, (3) building a descriptive statistical summary based on the collected data, and finally (4) running a topic modeling analysis. The goal of the methodology is to generate data and visualizations that help understanding possible behaviors related to retraction cases. We present the methodology in a structured step-by-step form following its four phases, discuss its limits and possible workarounds, and list the planned future improvements.

Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions

Background. Retraction of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers. The market volume and the business model justify publishers’ ethical involvement in the post-publication quality control (PPQC) of human-health-related articles. The limited information about this subject led us to analyze PubMed-retracted articles and the main retraction reasons grouped by publisher. We propose a score to appraise publisher’s PPQC results. The dataset used for this article consists of 4844 PubMed-retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020. Methods. An SDTP score was constructed from the dataset. The calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time (ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the editor/publisher/institution without the authors’ participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and the clarity of the retraction notes), and precision (mention of authors’ responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors). Results. The 4844 retracted articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of retracted articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than 10 retracted articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed dataset journals retracted at least one article. Only 10.5% of the retraction notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of retracted articles in 2020. Retraction-reason analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles’ ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), and 10 and 42 months (plagiarism and overlap). The SDTP score shows, from 2018 to 2020, an improvement in PPQC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score. Conclusions. Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature.

Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study

BACKGROUND

The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research.

METHODS

A total of 17 participants linked to European Union-funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor's work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case

In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children” by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing one retracted article and the characteristics of the citations the retracted article accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles and visualized the results. The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.’s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.’s article even before its full retraction happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.’s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large number of the citations received by Wakefield et al.’s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction of the Wakefield et al.’s article and often provided strong negative statements on it.

What difference might retractions make? An estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses

The extent to which a retraction might require revising previous scientific estimates and beliefs - which we define as the epistemic cost - is unknown. We collected a sample of 229 meta-analyses published between 2013 and 2016 that had cited a retracted study, assessed whether this study was included in the meta-analytic estimate and, if so, re-calculated the summary effect size without it. The majority (68% of N = 229) of retractions had occurred at least one year prior to the publication of the citing meta-analysis. In 53% of these avoidable citations, the retracted study was cited as a candidate for inclusion, and only in 34% of these meta-analyses (13% of total) the study was explicitly excluded because it had been retracted. Meta-analyses that included retracted studies were published in journals with significantly lower impact factor. Summary estimates without the retracted study were lower than the original if the retraction was due to issues with data or results and higher otherwise, but the effect was small. We conclude that meta-analyses have a problematically high probability of citing retracted articles and of including them in their pooled summaries, but the overall epistemic cost is contained.

Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals

Retractions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) papers in high impact journals, such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, have been panned as major scientific fraud in public media. The initial reaction to this news was to seek out scapegoats and blame individual authors, peer-reviewers, editors, and journals for wrong doing. This paper suggests that scapegoating a few individuals for faulty science is a myopic approach to the more profound problem with peer-review. Peer-review in its current limited form cannot be expected to adequately address the scope and complexity of large interdisciplinary science research collaboration, which is central in translational research. In addition, empirical studies on the effectiveness of traditional peer-review reveal its very real potential for bias and groupthink; as such, expectations regarding the capacity and effectiveness of the current peer review process are unrealistic. This paper proposes a new vision of peer-review in translational science that, on the one hand, would allow for early release of a manuscript to ensure expediency, whereas also creating a forum or a collective of various experts to actively comment, scrutinize, and even build on the research under review. The aim would be to not only generate open discussion and oversight respecting the quality and limitations of the research, but also to assess the extent and the means for that knowledge to translate into social benefit.

Cycles of invisibility: The limits of transparency in dealing with scientific misconduct

Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highly visible, while investigation and decision-making procedures remain mostly invisible. This corresponds to high levels of acceptance of sanctions in the scientific community, but a low acceptance of the respective authorities. Such a punitiveness in turn exacerbates confidentiality concerns, so that authorities become even more secretive. We argue that punitiveness towards scientific misconduct is driven by such a cycle of invisibility.

Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

This study aims to profile the scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database from 2010 to 2019, from researchers at the top 20 World Class Universities according to the Times Higher Education global ranking of 2020. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and simple linear regression were used to analyze the data. Of the 330 analyzed retractions, Harvard University had the highest number of retractions and the main reason for retraction was data results. We conclude that the universities with a higher ranking tend to have a lower rate of retraction.

For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature

We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970-2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed.Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China.Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.

Retraction: The "Other Face" of Research Collaboration?

The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.

Measuring similarity in co-occurrence data using ego-networks

The co-occurrence association is widely observed in many empirical data. Mining the information in co-occurrence data is essential for advancing our understanding of systems such as social networks, ecosystems, and brain networks. Measuring similarity of entities is one of the important tasks, which can usually be achieved using a network-based approach. Here, we show that traditional methods based on the aggregated network can bring unwanted indirect relationships. To cope with this issue, we propose a similarity measure based on the ego network of each entity, which effectively considers the change of an entity's centrality from one ego network to another. The index proposed is easy to calculate and has a clear physical meaning. Using two different data sets, we compare the new index with other existing ones. We find that the new index outperforms the traditional network-based similarity measures, and it can sometimes surpass the embedding method. In the meanwhile, the measure by the new index is weakly correlated with those by other methods, hence providing a different dimension to quantify similarities in co-occurrence data. Altogether, our work makes an extension in the network-based similarity measure and can be potentially applied in several related tasks.

The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.

The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship

Contemporary biomedical research is performed by increasingly large teams. Consequently, an increasingly large number of individuals are being listed as authors in the bylines, which complicates the proper attribution of credit and responsibility to individual authors. Typically, more importance is given to the first and last authors, while it is assumed that the others (the middle authors) have made smaller contributions. However, this may not properly reflect the actual division of labor because some authors other than the first and last may have made major contributions. In practice, research teams may differentiate the main contributors from the rest by using partial alphabetical authorship (i.e., by listing middle authors alphabetically, while maintaining a contribution-based order for more substantial contributions). In this paper, we use partial alphabetical authorship to divide the authors of all biomedical articles in the Web of Science published over the 1980-2015 period in three groups: primary authors, middle authors, and supervisory authors. We operationalize the concept of middle author as those who are listed in alphabetical order in the middle of an authors' list. Primary and supervisory authors are those listed before and after the alphabetical sequence, respectively. We show that alphabetical ordering of middle authors is frequent in biomedical research, and that the prevalence of this practice is positively correlated with the number of authors in the bylines. We also find that, for articles with 7 or more authors, the average proportion of primary, middle and supervisory authors is independent of the team size, more than half of the authors being middle authors. This suggests that growth in authors lists are not due to an increase in secondary contributions (or middle authors) but, rather, in equivalent increases of all types of roles and contributions (including many primary authors and many supervisory authors). Nevertheless, we show that the relative contribution of alphabetically ordered middle authors to the overall production of knowledge in the biomedical field has greatly increased over the last 35 years.

Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production

Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors' seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as 'technical' and those that could be considered 'conceptual': While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science.