The implications of fraud in medical and scientific research

Beyond Bias: Aggregate Approaches to Conflicts of Interest Research and Policy in Biomedical Research

Considerable efforts have been devoted to addressing the problem of conflicts of interest (COI) in health research, policy, education, and practice. An overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that conflicts associate with deleterious outcomes for the biomedical research enterprise. Nevertheless, little has changed for research, specifically, since the Institute of Medicine's landmark Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education was published over a decade ago. In this article, we draw on interdisciplinary research on manufactured controversies in science-policy deliberation to argue that the development of meaningful COI policy has been stymied through argumentative "wedges" designed to delay consensus and policy formation. Argumentative wedges disrupt policy formation by mischaracterizing the evidence base, continuously redefining the terms of the debate and/or recommending overly narrow criteria for who should be allowed to participate in policy deliberation. In this article, we argue researchers and policymakers interested in better addressing the harmful effects of COI can improve their efforts through strategic efforts designed to disrupt the wedges of manufactured controversy. Additionally, we argue that efforts to address COI can be further enhanced through embracing a broader framework for COI inquiry. Specifically, we argue that aggregate approaches to COI can help to disrupt these wedges and provide a strong foundation for future policy.

Retracted Publications in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: What Mistakes Are Being Made?

Objectives

Retraction of publications is critical to maintaining scientific integrity, yet there is a lack of research on its occurrence in Otolaryngology. This study investigates characteristics, trends, and reasons for retraction of publications in otolaryngology journals.

Study Design

Bibliometric analysis.

Setting

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science.

Methods

A PubMed search for publications retracted during 1990 to 2022 from the top 60 journals with the subject "Otorhinolaryngology" using Scopus' CiteScore was performed. Publications were excluded if they were not in English, had missing information or did not have available abstracts or full-text. Publication and retraction dates, journal, country of origin, citation counts, journal impact factor (JIF), topic, and reason for retraction were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to identify potential associations in the data.

Results

Fifty-three publications were included. The 2020s had the highest number of retractions per year (4.33), with publications being retracted on average, 35 months after initial publication. The most common retracted topic and country of origin were head and neck (26.4%) and China (17.0%), respectively. Most publications were retracted because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (52.8%). Mean citation count was 6.92 ± 8.32 and mean JIF was 2.80 ± 1.35. Citation count was positively associated with months until retraction (r = .432, P = .001). There was no significant correlation between months to retraction and JIF (r = .022, P = .878).

Conclusion

The most cited reasons for retraction were plagiarism and duplicate publication. An understanding of the reasons for retraction can better position journals to enforce more meticulous review standards and reduce such publications from being published.

Level of Evidence

Level 4.

The vital civilian-military link in combat casualty care research: Impact of attendance at scientific conferences

BACKGROUND

Attendance by military medical personnel (MMP) at scientific meetings (SMs) of civilian associations has been centrally managed since 2012. We aimed to document the importance of civilian-military interaction to and the impact of this change on combat casualty care (CCC) research.

METHODS

(1) We identified 25 clinically significant CCC articles published by MMP between 2005 and 2014; we determined whether these articles were preceded by presentation by MMP at an SM. (2) We examined the changing civilian-military mix of publications on "damage control resuscitation" (DCR). (3) We analyzed the number of presentations by MMP each year at the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. (4) We reviewed whether past presidents of the AAST (for 1992-2014) had military experience.

RESULTS

(1) Ninety-two percent of the CCC articles were previously presented at an SM; 66% were presented at civilian association venues such as AAST. (2) DCR was first described in 2006; the civilian-military mix of publications rose steadily from 0 in 2006 to 80% in 2014. (3) The number of MMP oral presentations at AAST peaked during 2005 to 2007 and has declined to one to two per year since 2012. (4) Thirty-three percent of recent AAST presidents had military experience, versus 100% for the previous era.

CONCLUSION

Recent conflicts led to intense civilian-military collaboration in CCC research and to the spread of ideas such as DCR from military to civilian care. However, long-term trends (e.g., declining rates of military service nationally) place such collaboration at risk. Vigorous efforts to foster the vital civilian-military link in CCC are needed.

Criminals in the Citadel and Deceit all along the Watchtower: Irresponsibility, Fraud, and Complicity in the Search for Scientific Truth

Scientific research aims to use reliable methods to produce generalizable new knowledge in order to understand the human condition and maximize human potential. The sanctity accorded to scientific research has been violated by numerous instances of research fraud, as well as deceptive and conflicted research that have seriously harmed people, subverted the evidence-base, wasted valuable resources, and undermined public trust. This deception by individuals has been fostered by the unrealistic expectations of society; facilitated by the complicity of institutions and organisations; and sanctioned by the inaction of supposed gate-keepers. Re-defining misconduct as occurring on a continuum from irresponsible to fraudulent is the first step in confronting this inconvenient truth. Implementing and evaluating multiple strategies targeting systems and individuals that promote the responsible conduct of research, rather than merely exposing serious instances of misconduct by individuals, is urgently required to restore faith in the aspirations, integrity, and results of scientific research.

Data integrity, reliability and fraud in medical research

BACKGROUND

Data reliability in original research requires collective trust from the academic community. Standards exist to ensure data integrity, but these safeguards are applied non-uniformly so errors or even fraud may still exist in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence and consequences of data errors, data reliability safeguards and fraudulent data among medical academics.

METHODOLOGY

Corresponding authors of every fourth primary research paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2001-2003), Canadian Medical Association Journal (2001-2003), British Medical Journal (1998-2000), and Lancet (1998-2000) were surveyed electronically. Questions focused on each author's personal experience with data reliability, data errors and data interpretation.

RESULTS

Sixty-five percent (127/195) of corresponding authors responded. Ninety-four percent of respondents accepted full responsibility for the integrity of the last manuscript on which they were listed as co-author; however, 21% had discovered incorrect data after publication in previous manuscripts they had co-authored. Fraudulent data was discovered by 4% of respondents in their previous work. Four percent also noted 'smudged' data. Eighty-seven percent of respondents used data reliability safeguards in their last published manuscript, typically data review by multiple authors or double data entry. Twenty-one percent were involved in a paper that was submitted despite disagreement about the interpretation of the results, although the disagreeing author commonly withdrew from authorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Data reliability remains a difficult issue in medical literature. A significant proportion of respondents did not use data reliability safeguards. Research fraud does exist in academia; however, it was not reported to be highly prevalent.