1
|
Tang BL. Potential Issues in Mandating a Disclosure of Institutional Investigation in Retraction Notices. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2024; 30:1. [PMID: 38261088 PMCID: PMC10805848 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-024-00468-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2023] [Accepted: 12/22/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927-2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bor Luen Tang
- Department of Biochemistry, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zhaksylyk A, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Kocyigit BF. Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading. J Korean Med Sci 2023; 38:e405. [PMID: 38050915 PMCID: PMC10695751 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2023] [Accepted: 11/08/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alikhan Zhaksylyk
- Department of Scientific and Clinical Work, Doctoral and Master's Studies, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
| | - Olena Zimba
- Department of Clinical Rheumatology and Immunology, University Hospital in Krakow, Krakow, Poland
- National Institute of Geriatrics, Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, Warsaw, Poland
- Department of Internal Medicine N2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine
| | - Marlen Yessirkepov
- Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
| | - Burhan Fatih Kocyigit
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Adana City Research and Training Hospital, Adana, Turkiye.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Xu SB, Evans N, Hu G, Bouter L. What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions? SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2023; 29:25. [PMID: 37402081 PMCID: PMC10319669 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-023-00442-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/05/2023]
Abstract
Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines' publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaoxiong Brian Xu
- School of Foreign Studies, Huanggang Normal University, Huanggang, China.
- Department of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
| | - Natalie Evans
- Department of Ethics, Law, and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Guangwei Hu
- Department of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
| | - Lex Bouter
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zivony A, Kardosh R, Timmins L, Reggev N. Ten simple rules for socially responsible science. PLoS Comput Biol 2023; 19:e1010954. [PMID: 36952443 PMCID: PMC10035751 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Guidelines concerning the potentially harmful effects of scientific studies have historically focused on ethical considerations for minimizing risk for participants. However, studies can also indirectly inflict harm on individuals and social groups through how they are designed, reported, and disseminated. As evidenced by recent criticisms and retractions of high-profile studies dealing with a wide variety of social issues, there is a scarcity of resources and guidance on how one can conduct research in a socially responsible manner. As such, even motivated researchers might publish work that has negative social impacts due to a lack of awareness. To address this, we propose 10 simple rules for researchers who wish to conduct socially responsible science. These rules, which cover major considerations throughout the life cycle of a study from inception to dissemination, are not aimed as a prescriptive list or a deterministic code of conduct. Rather, they are meant to help motivated scientists to reflect on their social responsibility as researchers and actively engage with the potential social impact of their research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alon Zivony
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Rasha Kardosh
- Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States of America
| | - Liadh Timmins
- School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
| | - Niv Reggev
- Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
- School of Brain Sciences and Cognition, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ribeiro MD, Mena-Chalco J, Rocha KDA, Pedrotti M, Menezes P, Vasconcelos SMR. Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error? Front Res Metr Anal 2023; 8:1064230. [PMID: 36741346 PMCID: PMC9895951 DOI: 10.3389/frma.2023.1064230] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2022] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mariana D. Ribeiro
- Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Jesus Mena-Chalco
- Center for Mathematics, Computing and Cognition (CMCC), Federal University of ABC (UFABC), São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Karina de Albuquerque Rocha
- Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Marlise Pedrotti
- Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Patrick Menezes
- Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
- Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,*Correspondence: Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos ✉
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Construction and management of retraction stigma in retraction notices: an authorship-based investigation. CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-03738-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
|
7
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges. JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE = ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ALLGEMEINE WISSENSCHAFTSTHEORIE 2022; 53:583-599. [PMID: 35669840 PMCID: PMC9159037 DOI: 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2021] [Revised: 11/14/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.
Collapse
|
8
|
Besançon L, Bik E, Heathers J, Meyerowitz-Katz G. Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late! PLoS Biol 2022; 20:e3001572. [PMID: 35239642 PMCID: PMC8923430 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Revised: 03/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Four scientists who have identified issues in published papers struggled to get them amended or retracted; here they present evidence that these struggles are widely shared and that scientific advances are presently critically hindered. They make suggestions for academic actors that would help scientists raise concerns about submissions and improve academia’s correction rate and speed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lonni Besançon
- Faculty of Information and Technology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- * E-mail: (LB); (EB); (JH); (GM-K)
| | - Elisabeth Bik
- Harbers Bik LLC, San Francisco, California, United State of America
- * E-mail: (LB); (EB); (JH); (GM-K)
| | - James Heathers
- Cipher Skin, Denver, Colorado, United State of America
- * E-mail: (LB); (EB); (JH); (GM-K)
| | - Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz
- School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
- * E-mail: (LB); (EB); (JH); (GM-K)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gholampour B, Gholampour S, Noruzi A, Arsenault C, Haertlé T, Saboury AA. Retracted articles in oncology in the last three decades: frequency, reasons, and themes. Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04305-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
10
|
Huybers T, Greene B, Rohr DH. Academic research integrity: Exploring researchers’ perceptions of responsibilities and enablers. Account Res 2020; 27:146-177. [DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1732824] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Bronwyn Greene
- Division of Academic Conduct & Integrity, UNSW – Sydney, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Vuong Q. The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2019. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Quan‐Hoang Vuong
- Centre for Interdisciplinary Social ResearchPhenikaa University Yen Nghia, Ha Dong District, Hanoi 100803 Vietnam
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Dobránszki J, Teixeira da Silva JA. Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions. Scientometrics 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03190-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
|
13
|
An analysis of retractions of dental publications. J Dent 2018; 79:19-23. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2018] [Revised: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 09/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
|
14
|
Bishop DVM. Fallibility in Science: Responding to Errors in the Work of Oneself and Others. ADVANCES IN METHODS AND PRACTICES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 2018. [DOI: 10.1177/2515245918776632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
|
15
|
Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman S. Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. Eur J Clin Invest 2018; 48. [PMID: 29369337 DOI: 10.1111/eci.12898] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2018] [Accepted: 01/24/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Fanelli
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, CA, USA.,Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
| | - John P A Ioannidis
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, CA, USA.,Departments of Medicine of Health Research and Policy, and of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.,Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Steven Goodman
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, CA, USA.,Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.,Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|