Assessing the perceived prevalence of research fraud among faculty at research-intensive universities in the USA

A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity with a focus on the primary forms of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also details the main factors for their occurrence, and the possible ways for mitigating their use among scholars.Methods: The method employed a detailed examination of the main ethical dilemmas, as delineated in literature, as well as the factors leading to these ethical breaches and the strategies to mitigate them. Further, the teaching experiences of the primary author are reflected in the development of the model.Results: The results of this article are represented in a model illustrating the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. Further, a significant aspect of our article is the identification of novel forms of research misconduct concerning the use of irrelevant or forced citations or references.Conclusion: In conclusion, the article highlights the substantial positive effects that adherence to research ethics and integrity have on the academic well-being of scholars.

How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers

Despite ample evidence of increasing research misconduct in India, little attention has been paid to understanding researchers' perception of research integrity and research misconduct among young Indian researchers. Interviews among 30 research scholars were conducted at Pondicherry University in India to understand their experience and perception of research misconduct. The top three influencing factors for scientific misconduct, according to the participants, were unavailability of adequate funds (35%), pressure from research supervisors (29%), and desperation to publish articles (25%). The participants had witnessed research misconduct in different forms i.e., data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, plagiarism was the most often cited cause of misbehavior in our interviews. Majority of participants have witnessed or personally encountered multiple instances where authorship conflicts occurred. The other questionable research practices highlighted in the study were improper citations, authorship disputes like gift and ghost authorships, misrepresentation of statistical data, failure to publish negative results. In an increasingly diverse and changing research environment, our research calls for practical research guidelines based on honesty, openness, and accountability that can help articulate and strengthen scientists' core values. More importantly, scientific misconduct can only be prevented by using a multifaceted strategy that includes identifying instances of scientific misconduct and implementing suitable deterrents and treatments that could change the behavior associated with such misconduct.

Should authorship on scientific publications be treated as a right?

Sometimes researchers explicitly or implicitly conceive of authorship in terms of moral or ethical rights to authorship when they are dealing with authorship issues. Because treating authorship as a right can encourage unethical behaviours, such as honorary and ghost authorship, buying and selling authorship, and unfair treatment of researchers, we recommend that researchers not conceive of authorship in this way but view it as a description about contributions to research. However, we acknowledge that the arguments we have given for this position are largely speculative and that more empirical research is needed to better ascertain the benefits and risks of treating authorship on scientific publications as a right.

Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool

OBJECTIVE

Fraudulent research exists but can be difficult to spot. Made-up studies and results can affect systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, causing harm through incorrect treatments and practices. Our aim was to explore indicators of research fraud that could be included in a screening tool to identify potentially problematic studies warranting a closer scrutiny.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a qualitative international interview study, purposively recruiting participants with experience and/or expertise in research integrity, systematic reviews, biomedical publishing, or whistle-blowing research fraud. We used a thematic analysis to identify major concepts and ideas.

RESULTS

We contacted 49 potential participants and interviewed 30 from 12 countries. Participants described research fraud as a growing concern, with a lack of widely accessible resources or education to assist in flagging problematic studies. They discussed early warning signs that could be contained in a screening tool for use either prepublication or postpublication. We did not speak to participants from indexing services, information software/analytics companies, or the public. Our suggested screening tools are empirically derived but are preliminary and not validated.

CONCLUSION

A practical tool of early warning signs for research fraud would be useful for peer reviewers, editors, publishers, and systematic reviewers.

The Ethics of Health Professions Education Research: Protecting the Integrity of Science, Research Subjects, and Authorship

The author was invited to write a commentary on the ethics of health professions education research. Based on the author's own experiences, published guidelines, and discussions with international colleagues, the author found that research ethics can be roughly grouped into 3 distinct areas, each with its own distinct aims: protecting the integrity of science, protecting the integrity of research subjects, and protecting the integrity of authorship. The focus of this commentary is to provide some guiding thoughts on each of the 3 areas for mentors of emerging health professions education scholars. While any framing logic is arbitrary, the 3 areas of research ethics can be illustrated by 9 distinct breaches of ethical principles, ranging from outright fraud to strategic authorship practices, and 27 practical lessons for learners to counter these and shape ethical research conduct. In general, the international variations in habits, rules, and regulations do not strike the author as being substantially different, but there are cultural variations in terms of what is emphasized and regulated. The ethics of research in health professions education has developed quite extensively in the past few decades, following advances in biomedical and other research domains, and are now grounded in several useful and authoritative guidelines. At the end of the day, however, ethical research conduct is a matter of internalized rules and regulations that researchers must develop over time. Emerging scholars need both instruction and role models to develop their own moral compass to navigate the rules, regulations, and purposes of research ethics.

Assessing research misconduct in Iran: a perspective from Iranian medical faculty members

BACKGROUND

Research misconduct is a global concern in biomedical science. There are no comprehensive data regarding the perception and situation of scientific misconduct among the Iranian medical faculty members. We conducted a nationwide survey to assess the research misconduct among the medical faculty members in Iran.

METHODS

We used the Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ) on the Google Forms platform. We sent the survey link to a systematic random sample of medical faculty members in Iran (N = 4986). Descriptive analyses were performed on the individual items of the PRMQ, with frequencies and percentages for categorical and Likert-type response items, and means and standard deviation (S.D.) for continuous variables. Chi-square analysis was conducted to test hypotheses examining differences in the frequency of responses related to factors influencing misconduct. We also defined four tenure categories (TC) based on the working years of the participants as tenured faculty members. All the analyses were performed using R 3.6.0.

RESULTS

The response rate was 13.8% (692 responses). Nearly 70% of the respondents agreed that their publication output would be of higher quality if there were no publication pressure. Approximately three-quarters (N =499, 72.1%) of the respondents had been aware of some instances of research misconduct during the previous year according to their understanding of misconduct. Among the participants, 18.5% perceived the effectiveness of their associated organisation's rules for reducing research misconduct to be high or very high. Pressure for tenure was identified as the item most frequently perceived with a strong behavioural influence on engaging in research misconduct (80.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that research misconduct needs to be actively addressed among the medical faculty members. Making policies with a focus on boosting awareness regarding the occasions of scientific misconduct and its management seems to be indispensable in the future in Iran.

Toward the development of a perceived IRB violation scale

This study introduces survey items that can be used to assess the perceived prevalence of specific IRB violations by researchers or to gauge the perceived seriousness of such infractions. Using survey data from tenured and tenure-track faculty at research-intensive universities, the descriptive findings showed that the failure to properly store data and neglecting to maintain project records were perceived to be the most widespread violations by sample members. Although comparatively less definitive, the results also showed that problems with data storage and record keeping were perceived to be relatively serious violations. As for scaling, the results from the exploratory factor analyses showed that the prevalence and seriousness scales were unidimensional. These findings support the practice of providing researchers with services for storing project data and records. Finally, the IRB violation scale developed in this study can be used by research integrity professionals to assess faculty perceptions at their universities.