Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. Institutional changes, rather than individual motivations, encourage misconduct

How generative artificial intelligence portrays science: Interviewing ChatGPT from the perspective of different audience segments

Generative artificial intelligence in general and ChatGPT in particular have risen in importance. ChatGPT is widely known and used increasingly as an information source for different topics, including science. It is therefore relevant to examine how ChatGPT portrays science and science-related issues. Research on this question is lacking, however. Hence, we simulate "interviews" with ChatGPT and reconstruct how it presents science, science communication, scientific misbehavior, and controversial scientific issues. Combining qualitative and quantitative content analysis, we find that, generally, ChatGPT portrays science largely as the STEM disciplines, in a positivist-empiricist way and a positive light. When comparing ChatGPT's responses to different simulated user profiles and responses from the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 versions, we find similarities in that the scientific consensus on questions such as climate change, COVID-19 vaccinations, or astrology is consistently conveyed across them. Beyond these similarities in substance, however, pronounced differences are found in the personalization of responses to different user profiles and between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices

BACKGROUND

Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices.

RESULTS

A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.

Misinformation: an empirical study with scientists and communicators during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To study the experiences and views within the health science community regarding the spread and prevention of science misinformation within and beyond the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An exploratory study with an empirical ethics approach using qualitative interviews with Australians who produce, communicate and study health science research.

RESULTS

Key elements that participants considered might facilitate misinformation included: the production of low-quality, fraudulent or biased science research; inadequate public access to high-quality research; insufficient public reading of high-quality research. Strategies to reduce or prevent misinformation could come from within the academic community, academic and lay media publishing systems, government funders and educators of the general public. Recommended solutions from within the scientific community included: rewarding research translation, encouraging standardised study design, increasing use of automated quality assessment tools, mandating study protocol registration, transparent peer review, facilitating wider use of open access and use of newer technologies to target public audiences. There was disagreement over whether preprints were part of the problem or part of the solution.

CONCLUSIONS

There is concern from within the health science community about systemic failings that might facilitate the production and spread of false or misleading science information. We advocate for further research into ways to minimise the production and spread of misinformation about COVID-19 and other science crises in the future.

Opportunities, risks and challenges in global mental health and population neuroscience: a case of Sino-German cooperation

Large scale prospective cohorts have now been established across several countries, and continents, and among the aims include an assessment of the developmental trajectory of mental disorders. This level of international cooperation helps transfer research findings to new social contexts as well as enabling an assessment of which findings can be replicated, and which interventions are most effective, in different social and cultural settings. However, data sharing across different regional and national health care systems requires a careful consideration of different standards in ethical research, data protection and patient care, including respect for patients' rights, in cooperating jurisdictions. In our review, we discuss ethical, legal and practical challenges associated with such cooperation with a focus on research participants, specifically patient recruitment, by considering the instance of China and Germany. Our broader aim is to promote international cooperation by identifying key challenges that arise in international cooperation, and to facilitate an exchange in relation to legal and practical approaches.

An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity

Research integrity and misconduct have recently risen to public attention as policy issues. Concern has arisen about divergence between this policy discourse and the language and concerns of scientists. This interview study, carried out in Denmark with a cohort of highly internationalised natural scientists, explores how researchers talk about integrity and good science. It finds, first, that these scientists were largely unaware of the Danish Code of Conduct for Responsible Conduct of Research and indifferent towards the value of such codes; second, that they presented an image of good science as nuanced and thereby as difficult to manage through abstracted, principle-based codes; and third, that they repeatedly pointed to systemic issues both as triggering misconduct and as ethical problems in and of themselves. Research integrity is framed as a part of wider moves to 'responsibilise' science; understood in these terms, resistance to codes of conduct and the representation of integrity as a problem of science as a whole can be seen as a rejection of a neoliberal individualisation of responsibility.

The masking and making of fieldworkers and data in postcolonial Global Health research contexts

This paper centres on the roles and contributions of fieldworkers-local data-collectors in Global Health research in postcolonial contexts. It is informed by two separate ethnographies, conducted in two different East African biomedical research institutions. It discusses how common characterisations of fieldworkers as 'low-skilled' and 'local' make them attractive to research institutions in two important ways - as community-embedded data-collectors thus facilitating community participation and as being unlikely to fabricate data because they lack the skills to avoid detection. This paper questions these assumptions. It draws on Daston's idea of the 'scientific persona' and Fanon's concepts of mask-making to explore how fieldworkers construct identities and data within their liminal roles. Fieldworkers create particular pseudo-personae or masks for getting and staying employed. They dumb-down CVs and emphasise their similarities with community members in ways which are partially 'real' but also 'fake'. These constructed identities provide fieldworkers with a persona that allows them to fabricate or modify data without raising suspicions. They frequently engage in practices known as 'genuine fake' data fabrication which is data perceived as factually correct and verifiable yet methodologically incorrect, hence it is real and fake in varying degrees. We understand the 'pseudo' as the blurry space between real and fake where fieldworkers construct their identities and data. Given the seemingly laudable aims of Global Health, we argue that fieldworkers' masking and making up data signal the need for greater attention by those designing its research, to better understand and address why and how these practices unfold.

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.

Research Misconduct: A Report from a Developing Country

BACKGROUND

Cheating rate is rising and engages newer methods. This study performed to estimate the rate of research misconduct in the thesis of undergraduate and postgraduate medical students in 2015.

METHODS

In this cross sectional study, all undergraduate and postgraduate medical students graduated during the study period in 2015, from the School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran were asked to fill a small checklist anonymously. It consisted of two demographic questions and two other ones for estimation of research misconduct. All three major types of research misconduct were explained in the checklist. We used the Randomized Response Technique for sensitive question in this survey. We asked the respondent to choose one question randomly and answer to it. The probability of selection of each question was equal.

RESULTS

There were 149 filled questionnaires out of which 44 (31%) were graduated for General Practitioner, 63 (44%) for Residency, 31(21%) for Master Degree and 6 (4%) for Ph.D. Fifty-two percent (75) were male. More than half of participants were graduated between 2011 and 2012. The majority of participants were native (104, 81%). Undergraduate students had an estimation of 19% research misconduct in performing the thesis while this was 26% of postgraduate students. Males were nearly two times comparing to females in this issue (30% vs. 16%).

CONCLUSION

This high estimation must be considered in future policy making about observing strictly on researches.

Morals, morale and motivations in data fabrication: Medical research fieldworkers views and practices in two Sub-Saharan African contexts

Data fabrication, incorrect collection strategies and poor data management, are considered detrimental to high-quality scientific research. While poor data management have been occasionally excused, fabrication constitutes a cardinal sin - scientific misconduct. Scholarly examinations of fabrication usually seek to expose and capture its prevalence and, less frequently, its consequences and causes. Most accounts centre on high-income countries, individual senior researchers and scientists who are portrayed as irrational, immoral or deceptive. We argue that such accounts contain limitations in overlooking data collected in 'the field', in low-income countries, by junior researchers and non-scientists. Furthermore, the processes and motivations for fabrication and subversive practices are under-examined. Drawing on two separate ethnographies, conducted in 2004-2009 in medical research projects in sub-Saharan Africa, this paper investigates fabrication among fieldworkers using data from observations and informal conversations, 68 interviews and 7 Focus Group Discussions involving diverse stakeholders. Based on an interpretative approach, we examined fieldworkers' accounts that fabrications were motivated by irreconcilable moral concerns, faltering morale resulting from poor management, and inadequate institutional support. To fieldworkers, data fabrication constituted a 'tool' for managing their quotidian challenges. Fabrications ranged from active to passive acts, to subvert, resist and readdress tensions deriving from employment inequalities and challenging socio-economic conditions. We show that geographical and hierarchical distance between high-ranking research actors and fieldworkers in contemporary configurations of international medical research can compartmentalise, and ultimately undermine, the relationships necessary to produce high-quality data. In focusing on fieldworkers, we argue for the inclusion of wide-ranging perspectives in examinations of data fabrication.

Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers

Unavailability of published data and studies focused on young researchers in Europe and research integrity issues reveals that clear understanding and stance on this subject within European area is lacking. Our study provides information on attitudes and experiences of European researchers at early career stages (doctoral and postdoctoral level), based on a limited sample of respondents (n = 27). The study provides both quantitative and qualitative results for the examined issues. The data suggest that awareness and interest of the younger researchers surveyed in research integrity issues is high, however, it is often based on self-initiatives, with many of the respondents not having adequate training or any possibility to obtain it. Our attitude survey conducted within the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers indicates that only 22 % of respondents had an opportunity to obtain relevant training (significantly less than in a study conducted in the U.S.), and that only one third believed that institutions and supervisors regularly paid attention to it. Further, we noted certain differences between disciplines. The study also reveals that many younger researchers felt they faced problems due to the misconduct of their senior colleagues and the existing institutional culture. The results of the study indicate a need for better prevention mechanisms, training and raising awareness activities. Preferably, junior researchers should be given an active role in shaping the integrity culture. It should be noted that the presented results should be considered in the context of the limitations stemming from the small-scale survey. This paper encourages further research activities on research integrity practices to provide stronger evidence on the attitudes and experiences of young researchers in Europe and other parts of the world.

The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks

Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 % of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 % of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.

Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country

Background

Misconduct in research tarnishes the reputation, credibility and integrity of research institutions. Studies on research or scientific misconduct are still novel in developing countries. In this study, we report on the attitudes, perceptions and factors related to the work environment thought to be associated with research misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria - a developing country.

Method

A survey of researchers attending a scientific conference was done using an adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Initial descriptive analysis of individual items using frequencies and proportions for all quantitative data was performed. Thereafter, Likert scale responses were transformed into dichotomous responses. Fisher exact test was performed for associations as appropriate. A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was accepted as significant.

Result

Half of the respondents (50.4%) were aware of a colleague who had committed misconduct, defined as “non-adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms”. Over 88% of the researchers were concerned about the perceived amount of misconduct prevalent in their institution and 96.2% believed that one or more forms of scientific misconduct had occurred in their workplace. More than half (52.7%) rated the severity of penalties for scientific misconduct in their work environment as low. Furthermore¸ the majority (56.1%) were of the view that the chance of getting caught for scientific misconduct in their work environment was low.

Conclusion

Researchers in Nigeria perceive that scientific misconduct is commonplace in their institutions, but are however worried about the negative effects of scientific misconduct on the credibility of scientific research. We recommend that researchers be empowered with the knowledge and virtues necessary for self-regulation that advance research integrity. Research institutions should however also step into their role of fostering a responsible research ethic and discouraging misconduct.

Fraud and deceit in medical research

Publication of medical research is the cornerstone for the propagation and dissemination of medical knowledge, culminating in significant effects on the health of the world's population. However, instances of individuals and institutions subverting the ethos of honesty and integrity on which medical research is built in order to advance personal ambitions have been well documented. Many definitions to describe this unethical behavior have been postulated, although the most descriptive is the "FFP" (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) model put forward by the United States' Office of Research Integrity. Research misconduct has many ramifications of which the world's media are all too keen to demonstrate. Many high-profile cases the world over have demonstrated this lack of ethics when performing medical research. Many esteemed professionals and highly regarded world institutions have succumbed to the ambitions of a few, who for personal gains, have behaved unethically in pursuit of their own ideals. Although institutions have been set up to directly confront these issues, it would appear that a lot more is still required on the part of journals and their editors to combat this behavioral pattern. Individuals starting out at very junior positions in medical research ought to be taught the basics of medical research ethics so that populations are not failed by the very people they are turning to for assistance at times of need. This article provides a review of many of the issues of research misconduct and allows the reader to reflect and think through their own experiences of research. This hopefully will allow individuals to start asking questions on, what is an often, a poorly discussed topic in medical research.

[Communication of scientific fraud]

There is for a scientific journal several levels of communication depending of the degree of suspicion or certainty of a case of error or fraud. The task is increasingly difficult for journal editors as disclosed cases of fraud are more common and scientific communication on this topic is growing. Biomedical fraud is fairly little reported by the mainstream press and causes of this low interest are not currently well understood. The difficulty of processing this type of news for journalists appears to be one possible reason. The potentially numerous and significant consequences of fraud on health professionals are poorly documented. Though it is likely to cause a feeling of distrust and create controversy, the impact of fraud on the general public is poorly studied and appears multifactorial.

A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences

Among the many forms of research misconduct, publishing fraudulent data is considered to be serious where the confidence and validity of the research is detrimentally undermined. In this study, the trend of 303 retracted publications from 44 authors (with more than three retracted publications each) was analysed. The results showed that only 6.60% of the retracted publications were single-authored and the discovery of fraudulent publications had reduced from 52.24 months (those published before the year 2000) to 33.23 months (those published on the year 2000 and onwards). It appears that with the widely accessible public databases like PubMed, fraudulent publications can be detected more easily. The different approaches adopted by authors who had previous publications retracted are also discussed herein.

A theoretical comparison of the models of prevention of research misconduct

The current methods of dealing with research misconduct involve detection and rectification after the incident has already occurred. This method of monitoring scientific integrity exerts considerable negative effects on the concerned persons and is also wasteful of time and resources. Time has arrived for research administrators to focus seriously on prevention of misconduct. In this article, preventive models suggested earlier by Weed and Reason have been combined to arrive at six models of prevention. This is an effort to streamline the thinking regarding misconduct prevention, so that the advantages and disadvantages of each can be weighed and the method most appropriate for the institute chosen.

[The amazing story of the fraudulent cloned embryos and what it tells us about science, technology, and the media]

Based on news reports from Brazilian papers, the article examines the case of scientific fraud involving cloned embryos, committed by South Korean scientist Hwang. The media generally focus on the intellectual process of science, its discoveries, and the new possibilities it promises. In this case, however, science is shown the other way around, revealing a web that interweaves elements of a radically disparate nature, like the Korean government, researchers, tools, research funds, human eggs and funguses, scientific journals, among others. These ties are what make up science in practice, yet they only become visible in the media when there is tension between them and, in this case, when something illicit happens.