Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct

Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism

The past decade has seen extensive research carried out on the systematic causes of research misconduct. Simultaneously, less attention has been paid to the variation in academic misconduct between research fields, as most empirical studies focus on one particular discipline. We propose that academic discipline is one of several systematic factors that might contribute to academic misbehavior. Drawing on a neo-institutional approach, we argue that in the developing countries, the norm of textual originality has not drawn equal support across different research fields depending on its level of internationalization. Using plagiarism detection software, we analyzed 2,405 doctoral dissertations randomly selected from all dissertations defended in Russia between 2007 and 2015. We measured the globalization of each academic discipline by calculating the share of publications indexed in the global citation database in relation to overall output. Our results showed that, with an average share of detected borrowings of over 19%, the incidence of plagiarism in Russia is remarkably higher than in Western countries. Overall, disciplines closely follow the pattern of higher globalization associated with a lower percentage of borrowed text. We also found that plagiarism is less prevalent at research-oriented institutions supporting global ethical standards. Our findings suggest that it might be misleading to measure the prevalence of academic misconduct in developing countries without paying attention to variations at the disciplinary level.

Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review

Promoting and implementing research integrity is considered the joint responsibility and effort of multiple stakeholders in the research community. We conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236 research articles and gray literature publications from biomedical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences (including engineering), and humanities that dealt with the factors that may positively or negatively impact the promotion and implementation of research integrity. Critical appraisal of evidence was performed for studies describing interventions aimed at research integrity promotion in order to provide insight into the effectiveness of these interventions. The results of this scoping review provide a comprehensive taxonomy of factors with positive or negative impact and their relatedness to individual researchers, research performing and funding organizations, and the system of science. Moreover, the results show that efforts for fostering and promoting research integrity should be implemented at all three levels (researcher, institution, system) simultaneously to deliver greater adherence and implementation of research integrity practices. Although various educational interventions aiming at research integrity promotion exist, we were not able to conclude on the effectiveness of explored interventions due to the methodological quality issues in the studies.

Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns

Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practises designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practises are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practises (e.g. data sharing).

Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Aims and Objectives

This study aimed to assess the nature and prevalence of misconduct in self and nonself-reported biomedical research.

Materials and Methods

A detailed review of previously conducted studies was conducted through PubMed Central, PubMed, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms: "scientific misconduct," "Publications," "plagiarism," and "authorship," and keywords: scientific misconduct, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and duplicate publication. MeSH terms and keywords were searched in combinations using Boolean operators "AND" and "OR." Of 7771 articles that appeared in the search, 107 were selected for inspection. The articles were screened for their quality and inclusion criteria. Finally, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Data analysis was conducted using an Open-Source, Open Meta Analyst, statistical software using the package "metaphor."

Results

Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification were prevalent in most articles reviewed. The prevalence of research misconduct for plagiarism was 4.2% for self-reported and 27.9% for nonself-reported studies. Data fabrication was 4.5% in self-reported and 21.7% in nonself-reported studies. Data falsification was 9.7% in self-reported and 33.4% in nonself-reported studies, with significant heterogeneity.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis gives a pooled estimate of the misconduct in research done in biomedical fields such as medicine, dental, pharmacy, and others across the world. We found that there is an alarming rate of misconduct in recent nonself-reported studies, and they were higher than that in the self-reported studies.

The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions

The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has a series of complex impacts on academic inquiry. These systems have gradually spread into a wide range of locations and disciplines, including the humanities. The aim of this study is to examine their effects as perceived by philosophy and ethics researchers in Spain, a country where bibliometric indicators have long been used to evaluate research. The study uses a mixed approach combining quantitative and qualitative data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender, and area of knowledge. Results show that the evaluation system is widely perceived to affect university researchers in significant ways, particularly related to publication habits (document type and publication language), the transformation of research agendas and the neglect of teaching work, as well as increasing research misconduct and negatively affecting mental health. Although to a lesser extent, other consequences included increased research productivity and enhanced transparency and impartiality in academic selection processes.

Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers

This article presents results from the national survey conducted in 2018 for the project Research Integrity in Norway (RINO). A total of 31,206 questionnaires were sent out to Norwegian researchers by e-mail, and 7291 responses were obtained. In this paper, we analyse the survey data to determine attitudes towards and the prevalence of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) and contrast this with attitudes towards and the prevalence of the more questionable research practices (QRPs) surveyed. Our results show a relatively low percentage of self-reported FFPs (0.2-0.3%), while the number of researchers who report having committed one of the QRPs during the last three years reached a troublesome 40%. The article also presents a ranking of the perceived severity of FFP and QRPs among Norwegian researchers. Overall, there is a widespread normative consensus, where FFP is considered more troublesome than QRPs.

Survey on the Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices of Medical Students, PhD Students, and Supervisors at the Zagreb School of Medicine in Croatia

This cross-sectional study evaluates the knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and behavior of final year medical students, PhD students, and supervisors at the School of Medicine of the University of Zagreb in relation to research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the research environment. The overall response rate was 36.4% (68%-100% for the paper survey and 8%-15% for the online surveys). The analysis reveals statistically significant differences in attitude scores between PhD students and supervisors, the latter having attitudes more in concordance with accepted norms. The results overall show a nonnegligible incidence of self-reported misconduct and questionable research practices, as well as some problematic attitudes towards misconduct and questionable research practices. The incidence of problematic authorship practices was particularly high. The research environment was evaluated as being mostly supportive of research integrity.

Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Irresponsible research practices damaging the value of science has been an increasing concern among researchers, but previous work failed to estimate the prevalence of all forms of irresponsible research behavior. Additionally, these analyses have not included articles published in the last decade from 2011 to 2020. This meta-analysis provides an updated meta-analysis that calculates the pooled estimates of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRPs), and explores the factors associated with the prevalence of these issues. The estimates, committing RM concern at least 1 of FFP (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism) and (unspecified) QRPs concern 1 or more QRPs, were 2.9% (95% CI 2.1-3.8%) and 12.5% (95% CI 10.5-14.7%), respectively. In addition, 15.5% (95% CI 12.4-19.2%) of researchers witnessed others who had committed at least 1 RM, while 39.7% (95% CI 35.6-44.0%) were aware of others who had used at least 1 QRP. The results document that response proportion, limited recall period, career level, disciplinary background and locations all affect significantly the prevalence of these issues. This meta-analysis addresses a gap in existing meta-analyses and estimates the prevalence of all forms of RM and QRPs, thus providing a better understanding of irresponsible research behaviors.

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ)

Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.

A bibliometric analysis of academic misconduct research in higher education: Current status and future research opportunities

The literature on academic misconduct has seen unprecedented growth over the past 20 years. As the research into this vital topic has grown, there have been a few reviews attempting to consolidate the literature. While the extant reviews have been insightful, a careful analysis reveals that these have somewhat different emphases, methods, and time intervals. Our study employs a bibliometric analysis approach on a large set of studies (779) published between 2000 and 2020. The analysis uncovers the key clusters, countries' co-authorship and evolution of research over the past two decades. It enriches contemporary knowledge on multifaceted issues of academic misconduct and offers resonant insights for academics, students, and policymakers. The paper concludes with several promising opportunities for future research.

Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China

BACKGROUND

Plagiarism is considered as serious research misconduct, together with data fabrication and falsification. However, little is known about biomedical researchers' views on plagiarism. Moreover, it has been argued - based on limited empirical evidence - that perceptions of plagiarism depend on cultural and other determinants. The authors explored, by means of an online survey among 46 reputable universities in Europe and China, how plagiarism is perceived by biomedical researchers in both regions.

METHODS

We collected work e-mail addresses of biomedical researchers identified through the websites of 13 reputable universities in Europe and 33 reputable universities in China and invited them to participate in an online anonymous survey. Our questionnaire was designed to assess respondents' views about plagiarism by asking whether they considered specific practices as plagiarism. We analyzed if respondents in China and Europe responded differently, using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic and other relevant factors.

RESULTS

The authors obtained valid responses from 204 researchers based in China (response rate 2.1%) and 826 researchers based in Europe (response rate 5.6%). Copying text from someone else's publication without crediting the source, using idea(s) from someone else's publication without crediting the source and republishing one's own work in another language without crediting the source were considered as plagiarism by 98, 67 and 64%, respectively. About one-third of the respondents reported to have been unsure whether they had been plagiarizing. Overall, the pattern of responses was similar among respondents based in Europe and China. Nevertheless, for some items significant differences did occur in disadvantage of Chinese respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that nearly all biomedical researchers understand (and disapprove of) the most obvious forms of plagiarism, but uncertainties and doubts were apparent for many aspects. And the minority of researchers who did not recognize some types of plagiarism as plagiarism was larger among China-based respondents than among Europe-based respondents. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers need clearer working definitions of plagiarism in order to deal with grey zones.

Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils

Inappropriate authorship and other fraudulent publication strategies are pervasive. Here, I deal with contribution disclosures, authorship disputes versus plagiarism among collaborators, kin co-authorship, gender bias, authorship trade, and fake peer review (FPR). In contrast to underserved authorship and other ubiquitous malpractices, authorship trade and FPR appear to concentrate in some Asian countries that exhibit a mixed academic pattern of rapid growth and poor ethics. It seems that strong pressures to publish coupled with the incessantly growing number of publications entail a lower quality of published science in part attributable to a poor, compromised or even absent (in predatory journals) peer review. In this regard, the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable. Because the many recommendations for adherence to authorship guidelines and rules of honest and transparent research reporting have been rather ineffective, strong deterrents should be established to end manipulated peer review, undeserved authorship, and related fakeries.

Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010

Publications by Chinese researchers in scientific journals have dramatically increased over the past decade; however, academic misconduct also becomes more prevalent in the country. The aim of this prospective study was to understand the perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct and the trend from 2010 to 2015. A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was designed and then validated by ten biomedical researchers in China. In the years 2010 and 2015, respectively, the questionnaire was sent as a survey to biomedical researchers at teaching hospitals, universities, and medical institutes in mainland China. Data were analyzed by the Chi squared test, one-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test, or Spearman's rank correlation method, where appropriate. The overall response rates in 2010 and 2015 were 4.5% (446/9986) and 5.5% (832/15,127), respectively. Data from 15 participants in 2010 were invalid, and analysis was thus performed for 1263 participants. Among the participants, 54.7% thought that academic misconduct was serious-to-extremely serious, and 71.2% believed that the Chinese authorities paid no or little attention to the academic misconduct. Moreover, 70.2 and 65.2% of participants considered that the punishment for academic misconduct at the authority and institution levels, respectively, was not appropriate or severe enough. Inappropriate authorship and plagiarism were the most common forms of academic misconduct. The most important factor underlying academic misconduct was the academic assessment system, as judged by 50.7% of the participants. Participants estimated that 40.1% (39.8 ± 23.5% in 2010; 40.2 ± 24.5% in 2015) of published scientific articles were associated with some form of academic misconduct. Their perceptions towards academic misconduct had not significantly changed over the 5 years. Reform of the academic assessment system should be the fundamental approach to tackling this problem in China.

Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing - Reasons, recognition and remedies

Plagiarism is one of the most serious forms of scientific misconduct prevalent today and is an important reason for significant proportion of rejection of manuscripts and retraction of published articles. It is time for the medical fraternity to unanimously adopt a 'zero tolerance' policy towards this menace. While responsibility for ensuring a plagiarism-free manuscript primarily lies with the authors, editors cannot absolve themselves of their accountability. The only way to write a plagiarism-free manuscript for an author is to write an article in his/her own words, literally and figuratively. This article discusses various types of plagiarism, reasons for increasingly reported instances of plagiarism, pros and cons of use of plagiarism detection tools for detecting plagiarism and role of authors and editors in preventing/avoiding plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Regular usage of professional plagiarism detection tools for similarity checks with critical interpretation by the editorial team at the pre-review stage will certainly help in reducing the menace of plagiarism in submitted manuscripts.