Conflicting messages concerning current strategies against research misconduct in Japan: a call for ethical spontaneity

Medical researchers' perceptions regarding research evaluation: a web-based survey in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Japanese medical academia continues to depend on quantitative indicators, contrary to the general trend in research evaluation. To understand this situation better and facilitate discussion, this study aimed to examine how Japanese medical researchers perceive quantitative indicators and qualitative factors of research evaluation and their differences by the researchers' characteristics.

DESIGN

We employed a web-based cross-sectional survey and distributed the self-administered questionnaire to academic society members via the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences.

PARTICIPANTS

We received 3139 valid responses representing Japanese medical researchers in any medical research field (basic, clinical and social medicine).

OUTCOMES

The subjective importance of quantitative indicators and qualitative factors in evaluating researchers (eg, the journal impact factor (IF) or the originality of the research topic) was assessed on a four-point scale, with 1 indicating 'especially important' and 4 indicating 'not important'. The attitude towards various opinions in quantitative and qualitative research evaluation (eg, the possibility of research misconduct or susceptibility to unconscious bias) was also evaluated on a four-point scale, ranging from 1, 'strongly agree', to 4, 'completely disagree'.

RESULTS

Notably, 67.4% of the medical researchers, particularly men, younger and basic medicine researchers, responded that the journal IF was important in researcher evaluation. Most researchers (88.8%) agreed that some important studies do not get properly evaluated in research evaluation using quantitative indicators. The respondents perceived quantitative indicators as possibly leading to misconduct, especially in basic medicine (strongly agree-basic, 22.7%; clinical, 11.7%; and social, 16.1%). According to the research fields, researchers consider different qualitative factors, such as the originality of the research topic (especially important-basic, 46.2%; social, 39.1%; and clinical, 32.0%) and the contribution to solving clinical and social problems (especially important-basic, 30.4%; clinical, 41.0%; and social, 52.0%), as important. Older researchers tended to believe that qualitative research evaluation was unaffected by unconscious bias.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations from the Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto to de-emphasise quantitative indicators, this study found that Japanese medical researchers have actually tended to prioritise the journal IF and other quantitative indicators based on English-language publications in their research evaluation. Therefore, constantly reviewing the research evaluation methods while respecting the viewpoints of researchers from different research fields, generations and genders is crucial.

High-throughput assessment of the antibody profile in ovarian cancer ascitic fluids

The identification of effective biomarkers for early diagnosis, prognosis, and response to treatments remains a challenge in ovarian cancer (OC) research. Here, we present an unbiased high-throughput approach to profile ascitic fluid autoantibodies in order to obtain a tumor-specific antigen signature in OC. We first reported the reactivity of immunoglobulins (Igs) purified from OC patient ascites towards two different OC cell lines. Using a discovery set of Igs, we selected tumor-specific antigens from a phage display cDNA library. After biopanning, 700 proteins were expressed as fusion protein and used in protein array to enable large-scale immunoscreening with independent sets of cancer and noncancerous control. Finally, the selected antigens were validated by ELISA. The initial screening identified eight antigenic clones: CREB3, MRPL46, EXOSC10, BCOR, HMGN2, HIP1R, OLFM4, and KIAA1755. These antigens were all validated by ELISA in a study involving ascitic Igs from 153 patients (69 with OC, 34 with other cancers and 50 without cancer), with CREB3 showing the highest sensitivity (86.95%) and specificity (98%). Notably, we were able to identify an association between the tumor-associated (TA) antibody response and the response to a first-line tumor treatment (platinum-based chemotherapy). A stronger association was found by combining three antigens (BCOR, CREB3, and MRLP46) as a single antibody signature. Measurement of an ascitic fluid antibody response to multiple TA antigens may aid in the identification of new prognostic signatures in OC patients and shift attention to new potentially relevant targets.