Reporting research, retraction of results, and responsibility

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Building a metaphor: another brick in the wall?

The metaphor of studies being bricks from which a wall is being built leads to new ideas about accumulating knowledge, explains Doug Altman

Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct

We describe the ongoing citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct, and characterize the papers that cite these affected articles. The citations to 102 articles named in official findings of scientific misconduct during the period of 1993 and 2001 were identified through the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science database. Using a stratified random sampling strategy, we performed a content analysis of 603 of the 5,393 citing papers to identify indications of awareness that the cited articles affected by scientific misconduct had validity issues, and to examine how the citing papers referred to the affected articles. Fewer than 5% of citing papers indicated any awareness that the cited article was retracted or named in a finding of misconduct. We also tested the hypothesis that affected articles would have fewer citations than a comparison sample; this was not supported. Most articles affected by misconduct were published in basic science journals, and we found little cause for concern that such articles may have affected clinical equipoise or clinical care.

A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: do they really mean it?

Since published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct are a species of image restoration, common strategies for responding publicly to accusations can be expected: from sincere apologies to ritualistic apologies. This study is a rhetorical examination of these strategies as they are reflected in choices in language: it compares the published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct. The letters are examined for any shifts in language between the charge of misconduct and the response to the charge in order to assess whether the apology was sincere or ritualistic. The results indicate that although most authors' published acknowledgments of scientific misconduct seem to minimize culpability by means of the strategic use of language, their resulting ritualistic apologies often still satisfy in some way the accusers' (and thus their community's) concerns.

A case study of a retracted systematic review on interactive health communication applications: impact on media, scientists, and patients

BACKGROUND

In October 2004, a flawed systematic review entitled "Interactive Health Communication Applications for People with Chronic Disease" was published in the Cochrane Library, accompanied by several press releases in which authors warned the public of the negative health consequences of interactive health communication applications, including the Internet. Within days of the review's publication, scientists identified major coding errors and other methodological problems that invalidated the principal conclusions of the study and led to a retraction. While the original study results and their negative conclusions were widely publicized in the media, the retraction seemed to go unnoticed.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to document an unprecedented case of misinformation from a Cochrane review and its impact on media, scientists, and patients. As well, it aims to identify the generic factors leading to the incident and suggest remedies.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study of the events leading to the retraction of the publication and of the reactions from media, scientists, and patients. This includes a review and content analysis of academic and mass media articles responding to the publication and retraction. Mass media articles were retrieved in May 2005 from LexisNexis Academic and Google and were classified and tallied. The extended case method is employed, and the analysis is also applied to comparable publishing events.

RESULTS

A search on LexisNexis Academic database with the query "Elizabeth Murray AND health" for the period of June 2004 to May 2005 revealed a total of 15 press reports, of which only 1 addressed the retraction. Google was searched for references to the review, and the first 200 retrieved hits were analyzed. Of these, 170 pages were not related to the review. Of the remaining 30 pages, 23 (77%) were reports about the original publication that did not mention the retraction, 1 (3%) was a bibliography not mentioning the retraction, and 6 (20%) addressed the retraction, of which only 1 was a non-Cochrane-related source.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyzed retrievals showed that the mass media gave more coverage to the Cochrane review than to the retraction or to a related systematic review with a similar scope but a different conclusion. Questionable results were prematurely disseminated, oversimplified, and sensationalized, while the retraction was hardly noticed by the public. Open commentary by scientists and patients helped to rapidly identify the errors but did not prevent or correct the dissemination of misinformation.