Misconduct by researchers and authors

Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review

BACKGROUND

In the modern tech-savvy era, scientific literature publication remains the optimal way to disperse knowledge, even if it has transformed from print to mostly electronic. With the new and improved publication methods, also come more scrutiny and analytic criticism of the scientific work. It becomes even more important in this context to rectify flawed scientific work responsibly. This present study was undertaken to help clarify the process and causes of retractions occurring in the dental community and analyse its reasons. Methodology. A total of 8092 PubMed indexed articles were scanned from the online libraries, and individually scanning for author details, place of study, subspecialty of research, funding, dates of original publication, and retraction notices issued along with journal specifics such as type and impact factors, country of publishing was compiled and analysed by two authors. The dataset was then collaboratively analysed using Panda's Library in Python software as an analysis tool for data preparation and for frequency analysis. The estimates were presented as mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

The present study had a compiled dataset of 198 articles after screening and revealed that maximum retractions of dentistry-related research originated from India (25.3%) and, on average, took 2.6 years to be issued a retraction notice. We also deciphered that the USA retracted maximum dental articles (34.8%), and plagiarism was cited as the most common (38.02%) reason for doing so. The present study also brought to light that there was a trend for lower impact factor-dental journals in retracting maximum articles, most of which were nonfunded (62.16%). The results signify that 63.78% of all retracted papers continued to be cited postretractions.

CONCLUSIONS

The retractions happening in the field of dental literature are currently too time-consuming and often unclear to the readers. The authors would like to conclude that the retracted papers were mostly from India and Spain mostly related to endodontics or prosthodontic research. All of this warrants the need for better scrutiny and reforms in the area.

Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda

Objective

Critical appraisal of clinical evidence promises to help prevent, detect, and address flaws related to study importance, ethics, validity, applicability, and reporting. These research issues are of growing concern. The purpose of this scoping review is to survey the current literature on evidence appraisal to develop a conceptual framework and an informatics research agenda.

Methods

We conducted an iterative literature search of Medline for discussion or research on the critical appraisal of clinical evidence. After title and abstract review, 121 articles were included in the analysis. We performed qualitative thematic analysis to describe the evidence appraisal architecture and its issues and opportunities. From this analysis, we derived a conceptual framework and an informatics research agenda.

Results

We identified 68 themes in 10 categories. This analysis revealed that the practice of evidence appraisal is quite common but is rarely subjected to documentation, organization, validation, integration, or uptake. This is related to underdeveloped tools, scant incentives, and insufficient acquisition of appraisal data and transformation of the data into usable knowledge.

Discussion

The gaps in acquiring appraisal data, transforming the data into actionable information and knowledge, and ensuring its dissemination and adoption can be addressed with proven informatics approaches.

Conclusions

Evidence appraisal faces several challenges, but implementing an informatics research agenda would likely help realize the potential of evidence appraisal for improving the rigor and value of clinical evidence.

A survey of retracted articles in dentistry

Background

Publication retraction is a mechanism to preserve the scientific literature against publications that contain seriously flawed or erroneous data, redundant publication, plagiarism, unethical research, and other features that compromise the integrity of science. An increase in the occurrence of retractions in recent years has been reported. Nevertheless, there is scarce information on this topic concerning publications in dentistry and related specialties. Thus, this study aimed to investigate retracted papers published in dental journals.

Methods

Data collection included an exploratory search in PubMed and a specific search in SCImago Journal Rank indexed journals, complemented by the cases reported on the Retraction Watch website and in PubMed. All 167 dental journals included in SCImago were searched for identification of retracted articles up to March 2016. The selected retracted articles and their corresponding retraction notices were recorded and assessed for classification according to the reason for retraction and other additional information.

Results

Forty of the 167 journals scrutinised at SCImago (23.9%) had at least one retracted article, and four additional journals were identified from the Retraction Watch website. A total of 72 retracted found were retracted for the reasons: redundant publication (20.8%), plagiarism (18.1%), misconduct (13.8%), overlap (13.6%) and honest error (9.7%). Higher number of retractions were reported in those journals with cites/doc <2.0—n = 49 (74.2%). The types of studies were mainly laboratory studies (34.7%), case reports (22.2%) and review articles (13.9%).

Conclusions

The approach to ethical problems in papers published in dental scientific journals is still incipient; retractions were mostly due to the authors’ malpractice and were more frequently related to journals with less impact.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2576-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing the "write" skills for publishing

Someone once told me that you (as a writer) are only as good as your worst publication. I think the point of that statement is that you should not submit a paper unless you have put your best effort into writing it. The quality of a paper is often a reflection of the amount of time you spent planning and writing it. As detailed in this Commentary, writing for publication is a not a single step but a process that includes planning, writing, submitting, revising, resubmitting, and proofing. Developing good writing skills involves seeking mentors and opportunities to write. However, if you have the passion or desire to publish, it is possible to develop the "write" skills.

Scientific dishonesty--a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway

Background

The knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities.

Method

Anonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics.

Results

189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official.

Conclusion

Although there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.

Criminals in the Citadel and Deceit all along the Watchtower: Irresponsibility, Fraud, and Complicity in the Search for Scientific Truth

Scientific research aims to use reliable methods to produce generalizable new knowledge in order to understand the human condition and maximize human potential. The sanctity accorded to scientific research has been violated by numerous instances of research fraud, as well as deceptive and conflicted research that have seriously harmed people, subverted the evidence-base, wasted valuable resources, and undermined public trust. This deception by individuals has been fostered by the unrealistic expectations of society; facilitated by the complicity of institutions and organisations; and sanctioned by the inaction of supposed gate-keepers. Re-defining misconduct as occurring on a continuum from irresponsible to fraudulent is the first step in confronting this inconvenient truth. Implementing and evaluating multiple strategies targeting systems and individuals that promote the responsible conduct of research, rather than merely exposing serious instances of misconduct by individuals, is urgently required to restore faith in the aspirations, integrity, and results of scientific research.

Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct

Fraudulent data and plagiarized text may corrupt scientific medical literature and ultimately harm patients. By prescribing erroneous treatment to an individual, only single patient is affected; but by presenting incorrect data or transcripts, the whole scientific medical universe is affected. Although both scenarios are highly undesirable, one can assume the magnitude of the effect of latter. Writers of scientific medical literature have been found to be involved in plagiarism and other publication misconducts from time to time irrespective of social, economic and geographic structure. The reason of such behavior is not usually obvious. Easy availability of personal computers has led to widespread dissemination of medical literature. As a result, young scientists are now publishing their research more frequently and efficiently. At the same time, this has increased the tendency to submit hurriedly prepared, poorly drafted and even illegitimate publications. Use of some amount of copy-paste followed by modifications during preparation of a manuscript seems to be common. Therefore, the researchers, especially postgraduate students, should be educated continuously about ethical medical writing.

[Fraudulent pain research: a hurt so deep nothing can alleviate it]

Untruthfulness in research is reprehensible. Dr Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts in the United States, a leader and pioneer in the field of multimodal analgesia, has been accused of fraud, specifically of having falsified results in at least 21 manuscripts published over a period of 15 years. This may come to be seen as one of the largest-scale and longest-running acts of medical research fraud ever. Apart from fabricated data, it seems the author committed other acts of misconduct. His coauthors have not been accused of wrongdoing, as they allege their names were falsely appended to the manuscript. The editors of the 2 most implicated journals, Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia, have published editorials retracting the papers they judge to be fraudulent. Because Dr Reuben is a major figure in postoperative multimodal analgesia, many studies by other authors whose hypotheses have emerged from findings announced in the discredited papers may also now be considered contaminated by association. The definitions of scientific misconduct and the procedures for pursuing offenders vary greatly from country to country, creating a certain degree of uncertainty about how to proceed when we confront this problem. Beyond any possible legal liability that might arise, there are the questions of how fraud might affect patients' health or the medical knowledge base. Although the concept of multimodal analgesia may continue to be defended, we cannot be absolutely sure of its benefits without carrying out new clinical trials to repair the damage done by this act of misconduct.

[Changes in CIRUGIA ESPANOLA Letters to the Editor between 2000 and 2007]

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency and bibliographic characteristics of letters to the editor in the journal, Cirugía Española published between 2000 and 2007 and to compare the differences in the periods between 2000-2003 and 2004-2007.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A descriptive and cross-sectional study, using the letters to the editor published in Spanish surgery between 2000 and 2007, as observation units. The variables considered were: the number of letters according to the volume and year of publication, substantive content of the paper, text length, graphics resources use, number of signatories and their professional profile, institutions of the authors, by origin and number of Autonomous Communities and number of bibliographical references. To meet the second objective, we compared letters from the period 2000-2003 with the period 2004-2007 against the rest of variables considered as a result. We used descriptive statistics and statistical analysis for comparison of distributions (chi2), with a level of significance of p < 0.05, using the SPSS software (Version 15.0).

RESULTS

We identified 312 documents classified as letters. Between 2002 and 2005 their number was small. Often referring to clinical cases 187 (59.9%) and related letters, 98 (31.4%). Of those, 81.1% met the standard length of the text and only 6 letters (1.9%) was the use of graphics exceeded. In 122 letters (39.1%) the permitted number of authors was exceeded. They were mostly contributed by surgeons, 238 cases (76.3%), usually a single hospital, with 294 letters (94.2%) mainly from, Catalonia, Andalusia, Madrid and Valencia. Only 58.1% of the letters complied with the permitted number of references. More related letters were published in the last period (59 letters; 42.1%) than during the years 2000-2003 (39 letters; 22.7%) (chi2 = 14.79; p < 0.001). The correct length of the text improved in the second period, 136 (97.1%), compared to the first 117 (68%) (chi2 = 42.67; p < 0.001. The graphics resources were used properly in both periods. The number of signatories ranged between 1 and 5 in 51.2% of cases in the first period compared to 72.9% in the second (chi2 = 15.25; p < 0.001. In both periods analysed the professional profile of the signatories was similar. More than one institution was involved in 10% of the letters in the final period, compared to 2.3% in the first year period (chi2 = 8.36; p = 0.004). The adequacy of the number of permitted references was higher in the final period (87.1%) than in the initial (34.9%) (chi2 = 86.72; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The letters in Cirugía Española journal have regained their previous frequency after a period of stagnation between 2002 and 2005. In the final period of the study there was a marked improvement compared to the first one in most indicators studied.