Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students

Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology

PURPOSE

Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings.

RESULTS

ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

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.

Plagiarism conundrum in Kenyan universities: an impediment to quality research

Purpose

Plagiarism has been on the rise, mainly because of increased access to the internet and digital sources. To combat the threat of plagiarism, various universities have implemented countermeasures such as capacity building, anti-plagiarism policies and the purchase of anti-plagiarism software. In Kenya, there appears to be a lack of cohesion among universities in combating plagiarism, a situation that threatens teaching, learning and research if not addressed adequately. This paper aims to review and identify anti-plagiarism practices in Kenyan universities; it further proposed various best practices and policy actions that ought to be adopted to win the fight and the misperception of plagiarism.

Design/methodology/approach

This study adopted a mixed-method approach by surveying the librarians and interviewing the graduate school directors or deans to establish the strength and challenges in implementing plagiarism measures in the universities in Kenya. Before collecting data, the researcher checked the reliability of the tools by pretesting and readjusting the tools based on input from the participants.

Findings

This study established that most universities in Kenya appreciate the fact that plagiarism negatively affects the quality of teaching, learning and research. However, despite the fact that there is goodwill in the effort to combat plagiarism, there were no unified mechanisms, strategies and implementation policies in solving plagiarism issues among universities in Kenya. Different universities have adopted different strategies in terms of policy, software and capacity. Further, it was noted that the well-established/funded universities had clear stipulated mechanisms as opposed to the ill-funded universities with limited funding and budget.

Practical implications

This research provides an opportunity for universities to make an informed choice about the policies, required capacity and software to tackle plagiarism. The findings from the study will be used to improve the quality of academic writing and standardize procedures on plagiarism by proposing policy actions needed to maximize the benefits of the investments in this venture. This study recommends a collaborations approach among universities in the fight against plagiarism. Because the Kenya Library and Information Services Consortium already supports many university cooperation, they ought to take the initiative in formulating policy, choosing the appropriate software to use and developing the necessary ability in the battle against plagiarism.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first effort to evaluate the anti-plagiarism strategies being applied in different universities in Kenya. This study demonstrates the gaps and variations in university strategies in combating academic plagiarism. The findings can be applied to improve academic communication and indeed the quality of research output at other universities in Kenya and beyond.