Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction: Implications for the peer-review process

The 1-h fraud detection challenge

Publications baring falsified and fabricated images appear frequently in the primary literature. Industrialized forms of image forgery as practiced by the so-called paper mills worsen the current situation even further. Good education and awareness within the scientific society are essential to create an environment in which honesty and trust are the prime values in experimental research. Here I focus on the detection of publication fraud and provide some examples and advice. Finally, my views on the future of fraud detection and prevention are given.

Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices

This opinion piece aims to inform future research funding programs on responsible research practices (RRP) based on three specific objectives: (1) to give a sketch of the current international discussion on responsible research practices (RRPs); (2) to give an overview of current initiatives and already obtained results regarding RRP; and (3) to give an overview of potential future needs for research on RRP. In this opinion piece, we have used seven iterative methodological steps (including literature review, ranking, and sorting exercises) to create the proposed research agenda. We identified six main themes that we believe need attention in future research: (1) responsible evaluation of research and researchers, (2) the influence of open science and transparency on RRP, (3) research on responsible mentoring, supervision, and role modeling, (4) the effect of education and training on RRP, (5) checking for reproducibility, and (6) responsible and fair peer review. These themes have in common that they address aspects of research that are mostly on the level of the scientific system, more than on the level of the individual researcher. Some current initiatives are already gathering substantial empirical evidence to start filling these gaps. We believe that with sufficient support from all relevant stakeholders, more progress can be made.

The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications

There is a mounting worry about erroneous and outright fraudulent research that gets published in the scientific literature. Although peer review’s ability to filter out such publications is contentious, several peer review innovations attempt to do just that. However, there is very little systematic evidence documenting the ability of different review procedures to flag problematic publications. In this article, we use survey data on peer review in a wide range of journals to compare the retraction rates of specific review procedures, using the Retraction Watch database. We were able to identify which peer review procedures were used since 2000 for 361 journals, publishing a total of 833,172 articles, of which 670 were retracted. After addressing the dual character of retractions, signalling both a failure to identify problems prior to publication, but also the willingness to correct mistakes, we empirically assess review procedures. With considerable conceptual caveats, we were able to identify peer review procedures that seem able to detect problematic research better than others. Results were verified for disciplinary differences and variation between reasons for retraction. This leads to informed recommendations for journal editors about strengths and weaknesses of specific peer review procedures, allowing them to select review procedures that address issues most relevant to their field.

Stem cell in urology-are we at the cusp of a new era?

Stem cell therapy can potentially disrupt conventional medicine as we practice it today. Stem cells can self-renew and differentiate and by this, repair and in certain conditions regenerate damaged tissue. In the past two decades, there has been significant research into its value in several chronic urological conditions for which conventional therapy is unsatisfactory. Stem cell therapy has been tried on animal models of bladder dysfunction, stress urinary incontinence (SUI), erectile dysfunction and urethral injury and certain preclinical studies have had very encouraging results. Yet despite this explosion of knowledge about the nature and value of stem cells, translation of research into the clinical domain has been slow. In addition, lack of regulation of stem cell therapy has resulted in indiscriminate, unscientific administration of stem cell therapy to patients. This review looks into the advances in the use of stem cells in urological practice, the recent regulatory guidelines that have been introduced and what the future holds for this exciting branch.

On (scientific) integrity: conceptual clarification

The notion of "integrity" is currently quite common and broadly recognized as complex, mostly due to its recurring and diverse application in various distinct domains such as the physical, psychic or moral, the personal or professional, that of the human being or of the totality of beings. Nevertheless, its adjectivation imprints a specific meaning, as happens in the case of "scientific integrity". This concept has been defined mostly by via negativa, by pointing out what goes against integrity, that is, through the identification of its infringements, which has also not facilitated the elaboration of an overarching and consensual code of scientific integrity. In this context, it is deemed necessary to clarify the notion of "integrity", first etymologically, recovering the original meaning of the term, and then in a specifically conceptual way, through the identification of the various meanings with which the term can be legitimately used, particularly in the domain of scientific research and innovation. These two steps are fundamental and indispensable for a forthcoming attempt at systematizing the requirements of "scientific integrity".

Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

Scientific publication is immensely important to the scientific endeavour. There is, however, concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive, allowing careless and fraudulent conduct to thrive, compounded by the predisposition of top-tier journals towards novel, positive findings rather than investigations confirming null hypothesis. This potentially compounds a reproducibility crisis in several fields, and risks undermining science and public trust in scientific findings. To date, there has been comparatively little modelling on factors that influence science trustworthiness, despite the importance of quantifying the problem. We present a simple phenomenological model with cohorts of diligent, careless and unethical scientists, with funding allocated by published outputs. This analysis suggests that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.

Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of 'Scientific Integrity'

Even though integrity is widely considered to be an essential aspect of research, there is an ongoing debate on what actually constitutes research integrity. The understanding of integrity ranges from the minimal, only considering falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to the maximum, blending into science ethics. Underneath these obvious contrasts, there are more subtle differences that are not as immediately evident. The debate about integrity is usually presented as a single, universal discussion, with shared concerns for researchers, policymakers and 'the public'. In this article, we show that it is not. There are substantial differences between the language of research integrity in the scientific arena and in the public domain. Notably, scientists and policymakers adopt different approaches to research integrity. Scientists tend to present integrity as a virtue that must be kindled, while policy documents and newspapers stress norm enforcement. Rather than performing a conceptual analysis through philosophical reasoning and discussion, we aimed to clarify the discourse of 'scientific integrity' by studying its usage in written documents. To this end, large numbers of scientific publications, policy documents and newspaper articles were analysed by means of scientometric and content analysis techniques. The texts were analysed on their usage of the term 'integrity' and of frequently co-occurring terms and concepts. A comparison was made between the usage in the various media, as well as between different periods in which they were published through co-word analysis, mapping co-occurrence networks of significant terms and themes.

Knowledge and Perception about Clinical Research Shapes Behavior: Face to Face Survey in Korean General Public

Considering general public as potential patients, identifying factors that hinder public participation poses great importance, especially in a research environment where demands for clinical trial participants outpace the supply. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge and perception about clinical research in general public. A total of 400 Seoul residents with no previous experience of clinical trial participation were selected, as representative of population in Seoul in terms of age and sex. To minimize selection bias, every fifth passer-by was invited to interview, and if in a cluster, person on the very right side was asked. To ensure the uniform use of survey, written instructions have been added to the questionnaire. Followed by pilot test in 40 subjects, the survey was administered face-to-face in December 2014. To investigate how perception shapes behavior, we compared perception scores in those who expressed willingness to participate and those who did not. Remarkably higher percentage of responders stated that they have heard of clinical research, and knew someone who participated (both, P < 0.001) compared to India. Yet, the percentage of responders expressed willingness to participate was 39.3%, a significantly lower rate than the result of the India (58.9% vs. 39.3%, P < 0.001). Treatment benefit was the single most influential reason for participation, followed by financial gain. Concern about safety was the main reason for refusal, succeeded by fear and lack of trust. Public awareness and educational programs addressing these negative perceptions and lack of knowledge will be effective in enhancing public engaged in clinical research.

Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review

'Medical science can only flourish in a free society and dies under totalitarian repression.' (1) Peer review post-publication is relatively easy to define: when the world decides the importance of publication. Peer review pre-publication is what the scientific community frequently means when using the term 'peer review'. But what it is it? Few will agree on an exact definition; generally speaking, it refers to an independent, third party scrutiny of a manuscript by scientific experts (called peers) who advise on its suitability for publication. Peer review is expensive; although reviewers are unpaid, the cost in time is enormous and it is slow. There is often little agreement among reviewers about whether an article should be published and peer review can be a lottery. Often referred to as a quality assurance process, there are many examples of when peer review failed. Many will be aware of Woo-Suk Hwang's shocking stem cell research misconduct at Seoul National University. (2) Science famously published two breakthrough articles that were found subsequently to be completely fabricated and this happened in spite of peer review. Science is not unique in making this error. However, love it or hate it, peer review, for the present time at least, is here to stay. In this article, Philippa Benson, Managing Editor of Science Advances (the first open access journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), discusses the merits of peer review. Dr Benson has extensive experience in the publishing world and was Executive Director of PJB Consulting, a not-for-profit organisation supporting clients on issues related to converting to full electronic publishing workflows as well as challenges working with international authors and publishers. Her clients included the Public Library of Science journals, the American Society for Nutrition and the de Beaumont Foundation. She recently co-authored a book, What Editors Want: An Author's Guide to Scientific Journal Publishing (University of Chicago Press), which helps readers understand and navigate the publishing process in high impact science and technical journals. Her master's and doctorate degrees are from Carnegie Mellon University. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Eaton KK . Editorial: when is a peer review journal not a peer review journal? J Nutr Environ Med 1997 ; 7 : 139 - 144 . 2. van der Heyden MA , van de Ven T , Opthof T . Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction . Neth Heart J 2009 ; 17 : 25 - 29 .

Cell therapy worldwide: an incipient revolution

The regenerative medicine field is large, diverse and active worldwide. A variety of different organizational and product models have been successful, and pioneering entrepreneurs have shown both what can work and, critically, what does not. Evolving regulations, novel funding mechanisms combined with new technological breakthroughs are keeping the field in a state of flux. The field struggles to cope with the lack of infrastructure and investment, it nevertheless has evolved from its roots in human stem cell therapy and tissue and organ transplants to a field composed of a variety of products from multiple cell sources with approval for use in numerous countries. Currently, tens of thousands of patients have been treated with some kind of cell therapy.

The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists: The case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology

In this brief paper we explore the Hirsch-index together with a couple of other bibliometric parameters for the assessment of the scientific output of 29 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. It appears that even within such a homogeneous group there is large interindividual variability. Although the differences are quite remarkable, it remains undetermined what they mean; at least it is premature to interpret them as differences in scientific quality. It goes without saying that even more prudence is required when different fields of medicine and life sciences are compared (for example within University Medical Centres). Recent efforts to produce an amalgam of scientific 'productivity', 'relevance' and 'viability' as a surrogate parameter for the assessment of scientific quality, as for example performed in the AMC in Amsterdam, should be discouraged in the absence of a firm scientific base. Unfortunately for politicians and 'managers of science' only reading papers and studying are suitable for quality assessment of scientific output. Citations analyses can't substitute that. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:145-54.).

Research ethics II: Mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership

PURPOSE

In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics II, the authors review the RCR domains of mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership.

METHOD

They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors close by urging readers to stay abreast of the manifold ethics issues facing today's community of scientists, policymakers, and research institutions, and to adhere to best practices as they evolve.

[Fraudulent pain research: a hurt so deep nothing can alleviate it]

Untruthfulness in research is reprehensible. Dr Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts in the United States, a leader and pioneer in the field of multimodal analgesia, has been accused of fraud, specifically of having falsified results in at least 21 manuscripts published over a period of 15 years. This may come to be seen as one of the largest-scale and longest-running acts of medical research fraud ever. Apart from fabricated data, it seems the author committed other acts of misconduct. His coauthors have not been accused of wrongdoing, as they allege their names were falsely appended to the manuscript. The editors of the 2 most implicated journals, Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia, have published editorials retracting the papers they judge to be fraudulent. Because Dr Reuben is a major figure in postoperative multimodal analgesia, many studies by other authors whose hypotheses have emerged from findings announced in the discredited papers may also now be considered contaminated by association. The definitions of scientific misconduct and the procedures for pursuing offenders vary greatly from country to country, creating a certain degree of uncertainty about how to proceed when we confront this problem. Beyond any possible legal liability that might arise, there are the questions of how fraud might affect patients' health or the medical knowledge base. Although the concept of multimodal analgesia may continue to be defended, we cannot be absolutely sure of its benefits without carrying out new clinical trials to repair the damage done by this act of misconduct.

Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction: Implications for the peer-review process

Scientific misconduct and fraud occur in science. The (anonymous) peer review process serves as goalkeeper of scientific quality rather than scientific integrity. In this brief paper we describe some limitations of the peer-review process. We describe the catastrophic facts of the 'Woo-Suk Hwang fraud case' and raise some ethical concerns about the issue. Finally, we pay attention to plagiarism, autoplagiarism and double publications. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:25-9.).