Muller and mutations: mouse study of George Snell (a postdoc of Muller) fails to confirm Muller's fruit fly findings, and Muller fails to cite Snell's findings

In 1931, Hermann J. Muller's postdoctoral student, George D. Snell (Nobel Prize recipient--1980) initiated research to replicate with mice Muller's X-ray-induced mutational findings with fruit flies. Snell failed to induce the two types of mutations of interest, based on fly data (sex-linked lethals/recessive visible mutations) even though the study was well designed, used large doses of X-rays, and was published in Genetics. These findings were never cited by Muller, and the Snell paper (Snell, Genetics 20:545-567, 1935) did not cite the 1927 Muller paper (Muller, Science 66:84, 1927). This situation raises questions concerning how Snell wrote the paper (e.g., ignoring the significance of not providing support for Muller's findings in a mammal). The question may be raised whether professional pressures were placed upon Snell to downplay the significance of his findings, which could have negatively impacted the career of Muller and the LNT theory. While Muller would receive worldwide attention, and receive the Nobel Prize in 1946 "for the discovery that mutations can be induced by X-rays," Snell's negative mutation data were almost entirely ignored by his contemporary and subsequent radiation genetics/mutation researchers. This raises questions concerning how the apparent lack of interest in Snell's negative findings helped Muller professionally, including his success in using his fruit fly data to influence hereditary and cancer risk assessment and to obtain the Nobel Prize.

Fake paper identification in the pool of withdrawn and rejected manuscripts submitted to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology

Honesty of publications is fundamental in science. Unfortunately, science has an increasing fake paper problem with multiple cases having surfaced in recent years, even in renowned journals. There are companies, the so-called paper mills, which professionally fake research data and papers. However, there is no easy way to systematically identify these papers. Here, we show that scanning for exchanged authors in resubmissions is a simple approach to detect potential fake papers. We investigated 2056 withdrawn or rejected submissions to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP), 952 of which were subsequently published in other journals. In six cases, the stated authors of the final publications differed by more than two thirds from those named in the submission to NSAP. In four cases, they differed completely. Our results reveal that paper mills take advantage of the fact that journals are unaware of submissions to other journals. Consequently, papers can be submitted multiple times (even simultaneously), and authors can be replaced if they withdraw from their purchased authorship. We suggest that publishers collaborate with each other by sharing titles, authors, and abstracts of their submissions. Doing so would allow the detection of suspicious changes in the authorship of submitted and already published papers. Independently of such collaboration across publishers, every scientific journal can make an important contribution to the integrity of the scientific record by analyzing its own pool of withdrawn and rejected papers versus published papers according to the simple algorithm proposed in the present paper.

Virtues and vocation: An historical perspective on scientific integrity in the twenty-first century

According to the Dutch chemist Gerrit Jan Mulder (1802-1880), the principal aim of university education was character building and moral edification. Professional training was of secondary importance. Mulder's ideas about the vocation and moral mission of the university professor can serve as a historical counterpart to later Weberian, Mertonian, and contemporary ideas on the ethos of science. I argue that a revaluation of the moral precepts that Mulder saw as defining the life of an academic is helpful in dealing with the problems of late modern science, such as the replication crisis and research misconduct. Addressing such problems must start in the university classrooms. To empower students to internalize the principles of responsible conduct of research, we need an updated version of Mulder's idea of the university professor as a moral agent.

What is the rate of text generated by artificial intelligence over a year of publication in Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research? Analysis of 425 articles before versus after the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is soaring, and the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 has accelerated this trend. This "chatbot" can generate complete scientific articles, with risk of plagiarism by mining existing data or downright fraud by fabricating studies with no real data at all. There are tools that detect AI in publications, but to our knowledge they have not been systematically assessed for publication in scientific journals. We therefore conducted a retrospective study on articles published in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR): firstly, to screen for AI-generated content before and after the publicized launch of ChatGPT; secondly, to assess whether AI was more often used in some countries than others to generate content; thirdly, to determine whether plagiarism rate correlated with AI-generation, and lastly, to determine whether elements other than text generation, and notably the translation procedure, could raise suspicion of AI use.

HYPOTHESIS

The rate of AI use increased after the publicized launch of ChatGPT v3.5 in November 2022.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In all, 425 articles published between February 2022 and September 2023 (221 before and 204 after November 1, 2022) underwent ZeroGPT assessment of the level of AI generation in the final English-language version (abstract and body of the article). Two scores were obtained: probability of AI generation, in six grades from Human to AI; and percentage AI generation. Plagiarism was assessed on the Ithenticate application at submission. Articles in French were assessed in their English-language version as translated by a human translator, with comparison to automatic translation by Google Translate and DeepL.

RESULTS

AI-generated text was detected mainly in Abstracts, with a 10.1% rate of AI or considerable AI generation, compared to only 1.9% for the body of the article and 5.6% for the total body+abstract. Analysis for before and after November 2022 found an increase in AI generation in body+abstract, from 10.30±15.95% (range, 0-100%) to 15.64±19.8% (range, 0-99.93) (p < 0.04; NS for abstracts alone). AI scores differed between types of article: 14.9% for original articles and 9.8% for reviews (p<0.01). The highest rates of probable AI generation were in articles from Japan, China, South America and English-speaking countries (p<0.0001). Plagiarism rates did not increase between the two study periods, and were unrelated to AI rates. On the other hand, when articles were classified as "suspected" of AI generation (plagiarism rate ≥ 20%) or "non-suspected" (rate<20%), the "similarity" score was higher in suspect articles: 25.7±13.23% (range, 10-69%) versus 16.28±10% (range, 0-79%) (p < 0.001). In the body of the article, use of translation software was associated with higher AI rates than with a human translator: 3.5±5% for human translators, versus 18±10% and 21.9±11% respectively for Google Translate and DeepL (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The present study revealed an increasing rate of AI use in articles published in OTSR. AI grades differed according to type of article and country of origin. Use of translation software increased the AI grade. In the long run, use of ChatGPT incurs a risk of plagiarism and scientific misconduct, and needs to be detected and signaled by a digital tag on any robot-generated text.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case-control study.

The landscape of the characteristics, citations, scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of retracted papers in hematology

Retraction is a mechanism for eliminating and correcting serious problems in the scientific literature and increasing awareness among members of the scientific community about unreliable literature. The objectives of this study were to identify the characteristics and reasons for retraction, analyze citations, and describe the scientific, altmetrics, and technological impacts of hematology retracted papers. Retracted papers were searched using the hematology category of the Web of Science database. The search yielded 101 retracted papers in WoS. Statistics methods such as frequency, mean, interquartile range (IQR), and Pearson's Correlation were used for data analysis. The findings showed the retracted papers were published in 28 different hematology journals. The majority of retracted documents were in Article type (n = 81). The mean time interval of the retracted papers from the first publication to retraction was 50.83 months. The largest number of retracted papers belonged to the United States (n = 46). The most frequently reported reason for retraction was misconduct (n = 55). The findings of this study provide a landscape into the characteristics and citations of retracted papers before and after retraction in addition to the scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of hematology retracted papers in the scientific community.

Passive Contribution of ChatGPT to Scientific Papers

Arguably ChatGPT jeopardizes the integrity and validity of the academic publications instead of ethically facilitating them. ChatGPT can apparently fulfill a portion of one of the four authorship criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), i.e., "drafting." However, the authorship criteria by ICMJE must all be collectively met, not singly or partially. Many published manuscripts or preprints have credited ChatGPT by including it in the author byline, and the academic publishing enterprise seems to be unguided on how to handle such manuscripts. Interestingly, PLoS Digital Health removed ChatGPT off a paper which had ChatGPT listed initially in the author byline of the preprint version. Revised publishing policies are, thus, promptly required to guide a consistent stance regarding ChatGPT or similar artificial content generators. Publishing policies must accord among publishers, preprint servers ( https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers ), universities, and research institutions worldwide and across different disciplines. Ideally, considering any declaration of the contribution of ChatGPT to writing any scientific article should be recognized as publishing misconduct immediately and be retracted. Meanwhile, all parties involved in the scientific reporting and publishing must be educated about how ChatGPT fails to meet the essential authorship criteria, so that no author must submit a manuscript with ChatGPT contributing as a "co-author." Meanwhile, using ChatGPT for writing laboratory reports or short summaries of experiments may be acceptable, but not for academic publishing or formal scientific reporting.

Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture

In his Nobel Prize Lecture of December 12, 1946, Hermann J. Muller argued that the dose-response for ionizing radiation-induced germ cell mutations was linear and that there was ''no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold''. However, a newly discovered commentary by the Robert L. Brent (2015) indicated that Curt Stern, after reading a draft of part of Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture, called Muller, strongly advising him to remove reference to the flawed linear non-threshold (LNT)-supportive Ray-Chaudhuri findings and strongly encouraged him to be guided by the threshold supportive data of Ernst Caspari. Brent indicated that Stern recounted this experience during a genetics class at the University of Rochester. Brent wrote that Muller refused to follow Stern's advice, thereby proclaiming support for the LNT dose-response while withholding evidence that was contrary during his Nobel Prize Lecture. This finding is of historical importance since Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture gained considerable international attention and was a turning point in the acceptance of the linearity model for radiation and chemical hereditary and carcinogen risk assessment.

Muller mistakes: The linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response and US EPA's cancer risk assessment policies and practices

This paper identifies the occurrence of six major conceptual scientific errors of Hermann Muller and describes how these errors led to the creation of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response historically used worldwide for cancer risk assessments for chemical carcinogens and ionizing radiation. The paper demonstrates the significant role that Muller played in the environmental movement, affecting risk assessment policies and practices that are in force even now a half century following his death. This paper lends support to contemporary research that shows significant limitations of the LNT model for cancer risk assessment.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.

METHODS

Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.

RESULTS

Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.

CONCLUSION

The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward

The goal of industrial/organizational (IO) psychology, is to build and organize trustworthy knowledge about people-related phenomena in the workplace. Unfortunately, as with other scientific disciplines, our discipline may be experiencing a "crisis of confidence" stemming from the lack of reproducibility and replicability of many of our field's research findings, which would suggest that much of our research may be untrustworthy. If a scientific discipline's research is deemed untrustworthy, it can have dire consequences, including the withdraw of funding for future research. In this focal article, we review the current state of reproducibility and replicability in IO psychology and related fields. As part of this review, we discuss factors that make it less likely that research findings will be trustworthy, including the prevalence of scientific misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs), and errors. We then identify some root causes of these issues and provide several potential remedies. In particular, we highlight the need for improved research methods and statistics training as well as a re-alignment of the incentive structure in academia. To accomplish this, we advocate for changes in the reward structure, improvements to the peer review process, and the implementation of open science practices. Overall, addressing the current "crisis of confidence" in IO psychology requires individual researchers, academic institutions, and publishers to embrace system-wide change.

Retracted publications in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology literature: an analysis using the retraction watch database

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the rate and characteristics of retracted articles in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology.

METHODS

Using the Retraction Watch Database, we conducted a cross-sectional study for retracted publications categorized as 'Infectious Disease' or 'Microbiology' until June 30 2022. We included publications for which citation information was available through the Web of Science database. Study characteristics, retraction trends and number of citations before and after the retraction year were analysed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1004 retracted publications were included, retracted between August 1968 and June 2022. The number of retractions climbed through the years, peaking in 2020-2021. A total of 614 retractions originated from USA, China, and India, of total 183 736 PubMed publications from these countries. Overall, 378 (38%) were retracted because of errors; 182 (18%) because of plagiarism; and 142 (14%) because of falsification/fabrication. Specific reasons included 'concerns/issues about data' (158, 16%); 'duplication of image' (127, 13%); and 'unreliable results' (116, 12%). Of the 347 retractions during 2020 to June 2022, 91 (26%) were COVID-19 related. Fifty of 895 (5.6%) first authors had two retracted papers, and 14 (1.6%) had ≥2 retractions. Of 824 publications cited at least once, 466 (57%) were cited more often after retraction.

DISCUSSION

Retractions of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology publications are increasing. Concerning reasons such as plagiarism, falsification/fabrication and errors are not uncommon. Nonetheless, these publications continue to be commonly cited after being retracted.

Which factors are associated with fraud in medical imaging research?

PURPOSE

To investigate the determinants of fraud in medical imaging research.

METHOD

This study analyzed aggregated survey data on scientific integrity completed by 877 corresponding authors who published in imaging journals in 2021. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the association of scientific fraud with the following variables: survey participants' age (<18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, or > 65 years), gender (male, female, or other), Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of their country of work (linear 0-100 scale), academic degree (medical doctor or other), academic position (none, fellow/resident, instructor/ lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, or other), and years of research experience (<5, 5-10, or > 10 years).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven survey participants (4.2%) indicated they had committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, and 223 (25.4%) indicated they had witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by departmental colleagues in the past 5 years. Instructors/lecturers were significantly more likely (P = 0.029) and fellows/residents were nearly significantly more likely (P = 0.050) to have committed scientific fraud, with odds ratios (ORs) of 4.954 and 5.156, respectively (Nagelkerke R² of 0.114). Survey participants > 65 years of age and survey participants working in less corrupt countries were significantly less likely (P = 0.022 and P = 0.044, respectively) to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud committed by their departmental colleagues, with ORs of 0.412 and 0.988 (per unit increase in CPI), respectively (Nagelkerke R² of 0.064).

CONCLUSIONS

Fraud in medical imaging research appears to be more common among junior faculty and in more corrupt countries.

Investigating and preventing scientific misconduct using Benford's Law

Integrity and trust in that integrity are fundamental to academic research. However, procedures for monitoring the trustworthiness of research, and for investigating cases where concern about possible data fraud have been raised are not well established. Here we suggest a practical approach for the investigation of work suspected of fraudulent data manipulation using Benford's Law. This should be of value to both individual peer-reviewers and academic institutions and journals. In this, we draw inspiration from well-established practices of financial auditing. We provide synthesis of the literature on tests of adherence to Benford's Law, culminating in advice of a single initial test for digits in each position of numerical strings within a dataset. We also recommend further tests which may prove useful in the event that specific hypotheses regarding the nature of data manipulation can be justified. Importantly, our advice differs from the most common current implementations of tests of Benford's Law. Furthermore, we apply the approach to previously-published data, highlighting the efficacy of these tests in detecting known irregularities. Finally, we discuss the results of these tests, with reference to their strengths and limitations.

Integrity in cardiovascular imaging research

OBJECTIVE

To gain more insight in scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging research by conducting a survey among all corresponding authors who published in cardiovascular imaging journals.

METHODS

Corresponding authors who published in one of eight major cardiovascular imaging journals in 2021 were requested to complete a questionnaire about scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging.

RESULTS

Responses from 160 corresponding authors were received. The majority of respondents had a medical doctor degree (81.1%), held an academic position (93.8%, of which 44.0% as full professor), and had >10 years of research experience (72.5%). Overall confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in cardiovascular imaging was high, with a median score of 8 out of 10 (IQR 2). 5 respondents (3.1%) declared having committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years and 38 respondents (23.8%) declared having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. 85.6% of respondents think that publication bias is present. 50% of respondents declared that any of their publications in the past 5 years had a co-author who actually did not deserve this co-authorship.

CONCLUSION

Experts in the field report that several forms of scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in cardiovascular imaging research. Despite these reports of academic dishonesty, overall confidence in the integrity of cardiovascular imaging research is deemed high.

Effect of medical researchers' creative performance on scientific misconduct: a moral psychology perspective

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some researchers have engaged in scientific misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism to achieve higher research performance. Considering their detrimental effects on individuals' health status (e.g., patients, etc.) and extensive financial costs levied upon healthcare systems, such wrongdoings have even more salience in medical sciences. However, there has been little discussion on the possible influence of medical researchers' existing creative performance on scientific misconduct, and the moral psychological mechanisms underlying those effects are still poorly understood.

METHODS

We build a moderated mediation model to test how medical researchers' creative performance affects their scientific misconduct and explore the role of moral licensing and moral identity in this process. Based on situational experiments and projection techniques, 287 medical researchers in China participated in a survey.

RESULTS

Medical researchers' creative performance positively relates to scientific misconduct, and moral licensing plays a mediating role in the relationship between them. In addition, moral identity has a negative moderating effect on the mediating effect of moral licensing on creative performance and scientific misconduct.

CONCLUSION

Moral licensing plays a fully mediating role in the relationship between creative performance and scientific misconduct. And moral identity negatively moderates the indirect effect of creative performance on scientific misconduct through moral licensing. The findings provide theoretical and practical implications for the prevention of medical researchers' scientific misconduct.

Awareness and knowledge of manuscript writing and research integrity: A cross sectional survey among graduate students

Graduate students face a variety of barriers when writing manuscripts. The major barrier is inadequate writing experience and training. We aimed to evaluate the awareness and the knowledge of the basic principles in manuscript writing and research integrity among graduate students, and to assess the usefulness of workshops to improve their knowledge about manuscript writing process. A cross sectional survey was developed to evaluate the awareness and the knowledge about the manuscript writing steps and the research integrity among graduate students in Jordan. A one-day workshop about manuscript writing and research integrity was conducted. Students (n = 285) completed the questionnaire. Most participants were female masters'; students. Although 83.8% of the students were aware of the general manuscript structure, most of them were not aware of the basic concepts to write most manuscript sections. Only 22.5% of the students were aware of the authorship criteria. Data showed a lack of knowledge of different practices of scientific misconduct. Barriers in manuscript writing included the lack of focused research methodology courses and the lack of professional workshops and the absence constructive mentorship support. The workshop was useful in introducing the key concepts in manuscript writing. The present study revealed a lack of knowledge among graduate students about manuscript writing and scientific misconduct. Professional workshops are useful in improving students' knowledge.

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 Research Integrity Office in Spain. A pending issue]

In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct.

Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research

PURPOSE

To investigate the view of radiologists on the integrity of their own and their colleagues' scientific work.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Corresponding authors of articles that were published in 12 general radiology journals in 2021 were invited to participate in a survey on scientific integrity.

RESULTS

A total of 219 (6.2 %) of 3,511 invited corresponding authors participated. Thirteen (5.9 %) respondents reported having committed scientific fraud, and 60 (27.4 %) witnessed or suspect scientific fraud among their departmental members in the past 5 years. Misleading reporting (32.2 %), duplicate/redundant publication (26.3 %), plagiarism (15.3 %), and data manipulation/falsification (13.6 %) were the most commonly reported types of scientific fraud. Publication bias exists according to 184 (84.5 %) respondents, and 89 (40.6 %) respondents had honorary authors on their publications in the past 5 years. General confidence in the integrity of scientific publications ranged between 2 and 10 (median: 8) on a 0-10 point scale. Common topics of interest and concern among respondents were authorship criteria and assignments, perverse incentives (including the influence of money, funding, and academic promotions on the practice of research), and poorly performed research without intentional fraud.

CONCLUSION

Radiology researchers reported that scientific fraud and other undesirable practices such as publication bias and honorary authorship are relatively common. Their general confidence in the scientific integrity of published work was relatively high, but far from perfect. These data may trigger stakeholders in the radiology community to place scientific integrity higher on the agenda, and to initiate cultural and policy reforms to remove perverse research incentives.

Restoring trust in research among historically underrepresented communities: A call to action for antiracism research in nursing

BACKGROUND

Health disparities and inequities among historically underrepresented populations represent a public health crisis.

PURPOSE

This manuscript describes how use of an antiracism framework, an evidence-based approach to addressing systemic barriers, can assist with restoring trust in historically underrepresented communities that have experienced harm by researchers.

METHODS

We also discuss the necessity of inclusive research teams and provide exemplars of how antiracism research principles and inclusive research teams can be used to mitigate harm and restore trust in historically underrepresented communities.

DISCUSSION

Historical trauma and research misconduct have resulted in the mistrust of healthcare providers and health care systems among historically underrepresented individuals and communities.

CONCLUSION

Nurse scientists are positioned to appreciate historical inequities and trauma and to intervene by developing culturally relevant interventions. This work, however, will only happen if communities that have suffered harm trust nurse scientists.

Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality

BACKGROUND

Research and academic institutions use various delivery channels to deliver Research Integrity (RI) education in their communities. Yet there is no consensus on the best delivery method and the effectiveness of these channels in inculcating a positive RI culture varies across institutions. Hence, this study aimed to understand the preferences of the research community in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted on NTU research community to understand their experience with, and preference for each RI education mode offered in NTU. The RI education modes surveyed in the general ranking question are Data Management Plan (DMP) workshops, Epigeum e-Learning, Compass e-newsletter (email), and NTU policy on Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research. There were 242 responses, comprising 50% research students, 32.2% research staff and 17.8% faculty members. Non-parametric statistical techniques were used to analyse preferences across different RI education modes and within sub-groups (i.e., fields, age, native language, roles in research community).

RESULTS

More than 92% of respondents subscribed to the importance of RI education, but with different preferences for education modes. With respect to RI education in NTU, Compass e-newsletters were ranked the lowest (p < 0.05). Most felt that they were too wordy and unengaging, making it difficult to absorb information. Similarly, Epigeum e-Learning (p < 0.05) and 'policy' (p < 0.05) were found to be too lengthy in presentation. The compulsory NTU RI education modes (Epigeum e-learning and 'policy') enjoyed higher participation rates of 70-80% compared with 32-37% for the self-regulated modes (DMP workshop and e-newsletter). This suggests that regulatory mechanisms are still necessary to promote participation in RI education, and thus, core RI education content should be made compulsory in research/academic institutions. Although Epigeum is a compulsory course, some may not have participated in the programme due to technical issues or they might have forgotten to participate in the programme within the permissible timeframe. For all four RI education modes in NTU, the lack of awareness was among the top cited reasons for not participating.

CONCLUSIONS

Most NTU researchers perceived RI education positively although they may have reservations for some approaches. Conversely, e-Learning is favored over all the other modes except for the mode of Policy. Findings from this study are useful for improving the design of RI education strategies to be more appealing to the research community by enhancing user experience in terms of user-friendliness, relevance to specialisation, providing concise information and better presentation of materials For institutions with similar modes of RI education as NTU, these results may be relevant in improving participation rates and presentation of RI education modes, such as the use of infographics and more concise information.

An honest cheater: perception of self-concept, academic and clinical dishonesty among nursing students

BACKGROUND

The Self-Concept Maintenance Theory emphasizes the internal moral principles of the individual and their influence on self-perception of personal identity. They also inform the way in which an individual catalogues their behavior. For instance, a nursing student who is academically dishonest, yet justifies their behavior in rational terms. They act with dishonesty, yet their self-concept is of an honest person.

OBJECTIVES

The study examined the extent of dishonesty in nursing education (includes academic and clinical), the perception of self-concept vis-à-vis dishonesty, and the relationship between academic and clinical dishonesty among nursing students.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTINGS

A major university in central Israel.

PARTICIPANTS

Nursing students (n = 343), the age range is 19-58 and 80% women. Academically, 37% come from a professional post-graduate program, 32% from a baccalaureate program, and 31% from a nursing professional retraining program.

METHODS

The research tool that was disseminated to the participants is based on the Student Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire. The tool examined actual academic and clinical honesty/dishonesty, behavior cataloging by students, their internal principles, and perception of self-concept relating to honesty/dishonesty.

RESULTS

Significant relationships were found between all model variables, with no differences noted between programs and the number of years to the degree. Academic dishonesty was reported by 41% of the students with 11% reporting clinical dishonesty. Academic dishonesty was related to clinical dishonesty (χ2 = 34.752; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The study findings are most troubling due to the direct impact of dishonesty on patients' treatment, outcomes and the graduates' professional level. Dishonesty can lead to significant deficiencies in knowledge, professionalism and expertise of the future professional. This state of affairs can be detrimental to the quality of patient treatment. Thus, dishonesty in academic and clinical education has devastating consequences for individual patients and the health and safety of the broader community.

How to trust a scientist

Epistemic trust among scientists is inevitable. There are two questions about this: (1) What is the content of this trust, what do scientists trust each other for? (2) Is such trust epistemically justified? I argue that if we assume a traditional answer to (1), namely that scientists trust each other to be reliable informants, then the answer to question (2) is negative, certainly for the biomedical and social sciences. This motivates a different construal of trust among scientists and therefore a different answer to (1): scientists trust each other to only testify to claims that are backed by evidence gathered in accordance with prevailing methodological standards. On this answer, trust among scientists is epistemically justified.

LNTgate: How LNT benefited from editorial actions

This paper illustrates how the acceptance of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model was unethically advocated and advanced both by key scientists within the radiation genetics community, and by editorial practices in Science, a leading international scientific journal. Four key papers became the cornerstones in the acceptance of the LNT model. In the publication process of these papers, editorial decisions to circumvent peer review occurred in at least two cases. As well, the summarized data of one paper were never shared with the scientific community and remain missing to date. Publication of a paper in Science on which a senior editor of the journal was a co-author is alleged to have intentionally falsified the research record (BEAR Genetics Panel). These findings raise the question of whether foundational papers for major contemporary regulatory policy (i.e., LNT/cancer risk assessment) that lack scientific legitimacy, as identified herein, should be retracted. These findings also should serve as the basis for considerable ethical concern, as well as a prompt for ongoing ethical diligence and rigor in the conduct and publication of scientific research.

Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review

"Paper mills" are unethical outsourcing agencies proficient in fabricating fraudulent manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals. In earlier years, the activity of such companies involved plagiarism, but their processes have gained complexity, involving the fabrication of images and fake results. The objective of this study is to examine the main features of retracted paper mills' articles registered in the Retraction Watch database, from inception to the present, analyzing the number of articles per year, their number of citations, and their authorship network. Eligibility criteria for inclusion: retracted articles in any language due to paper mill activity. Retraction letters, notes, and notices, for exclusion. We collected the associated citations and the journals' impact factors of the retracted papers from Web of Science (Clarivate) and performed a data network analysis using VOSviewer software. This scoping review complies with PRISMA 2020 statement and main extensions. After a thorough analysis of the data, we identified 325 retracted articles due to suspected operations published in 31 journals (with a mean impact factor of 3.1). These retractions have produced 3708 citations. Nearly all retracted papers have come from China. Journal's impact factor lower than 7, life sciences journals, cancer, and molecular biology topics were common among retracted studies. The rapid increase of retractions is highly challenging. Paper mills damage scientific research integrity, exacerbating fraud, plagiarism, fake images, and simulated results. Rheumatologists should be fully aware of this growing phenomenon.

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research

BACKGROUND

Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences.

METHODS

Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org , and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau² and Chi² tests and I² to quantify inconsistency.

DISCUSSION

The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/ .

Response-Corruption, Trust, and Professional Regulation

In their 2018 article in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Little, Lipworth, and Kerridge unpack the concept of corruption and clarify the mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist, noting that organizations are "corruptogenic." To address the "so-what" question, I draw on research about trust and trustworthiness, emphasizing that a person's well-being and sense of security require trust to be present at both the individual and organizational levels-which is not possible in an environment where corruption and misconduct prevail. I highlight similarities in Little et al.'s framing of corruption to the persistent problem of scientific misconduct in research and publishing. I acknowledge the challenges in stemming corruption in science and medicine and conclude with a discussion about the need to reinvigorate a web of stakeholders to actively engage in professional regulation.

A survey of retractions in the cardiovascular literature

BACKGROUND

Retractions of erroneous and fraudulent papers from the biomedical literature continue to be a major concern. The aim of this analysis is to summarize trends of retractions in the cardiovascular literature over the past four decades.

METHODS

A review of the Retraction Watch database for retracted articles published between 1978 and 2020 in the cardiovascular literature was performed. Retractions with the term "medicine" in the subject code were selected. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and only retractions of articles in cardiovascular medicine and surgery were included.

RESULTS

459 retraction notices published in 228 journals were identified. The number of retractions increased with time from 1 in 1991 to 48 at the end of 2019 (P < 0.001). Overall, the yearly percentage of retraction increased during the study period (P < 0.001) but decreased after 2015. China had the highest percentage of retractions when compared to other countries (P < 0.001). The majority of articles were retracted for scientific misconduct (n = 289, 63.0%); retractions due to scientific misconduct increased significantly over the study period (P = 0.04) but decreased after 2015. The median time from publication to retraction was 1.4 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.6-3.8) and decreased significantly over time (P < 0.001). The median number of citations of retracted articles was 8.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of retractions and the yearly percentage of retraction in the cardiovascular literature increased significantly during the study period, although a decrease was seen after 2015. Scientific misconduct represents the most common reason for retraction, although a reduction has been observed in the last five years.

[Clinical studies in trauma surgery and orthopedics: read, interpret and implement]

Für eine informierte, partizipative ärztliche Entscheidungsfindung müssen Sie neben Ihrem Erfahrungswissen aktuelle wissenschaftliche Daten berücksichtigen. Die digitale Informationsflut macht es im klinischen Alltag allerdings schwer, immer auf dem Stand des Wissens zu bleiben. Der Beitrag bietet einige Hilfen an, wie mit diesem Problem umgegangen werden kann. Ein grundlegendes Verständnis über Vor- und Nachwahrscheinlichkeiten sowie systematische Fehler (Bias) erleichtert die Abwägung zwischen Nutzen und Risiko z. B. einer (chirurgischen) Intervention im Vergleich zu einer nichtoperativen Therapie. Randomisierte Studien („randomized controlled trials“, RCT, mit allen modernen Modifikationen) liefern unverzerrte Ergebnisse, führen in Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie evtl. zu einer stark selektierten, nichtrepräsentativen Stichprobe, und ihre Resultate müssen durch weitere, unabhängige RCT bestätigt oder widerlegt werden. Große beobachtende Datenmengen (z. B. aus Registern) können quasiexperimentell modelliert werden und RCT in der Gesundheitstechnologiebewertung flankieren.

Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods

BACKGROUND

Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity-not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates.

METHODS

The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary.

RESULTS

Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would-supported by the body of valid evidence-protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public's health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

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.

Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To give an overview of the available methods to investigate research misconduct in health-related research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In this scoping review, we conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and The Virtual Health Library portal up to July 2020. We included papers that mentioned and/or described methods for screening or assessing research misconduct in health-related research. We categorized identified methods into the following four groups according to their scopes: overall concern, textual concern, image concern, and data concern.

RESULTS

We included 57 papers reporting on 27 methods: two on overall concern, four on textual concern, three on image concern, and 18 on data concern. Apart from the methods to locate textual plagiarism and image manipulation, all other methods, be it theoretical or empirical, are based on examples, are not standardized, and lack formal validation.

CONCLUSION

Existing methods cover a wide range of issues regarding research misconduct. Although measures to counteract textual plagiarism are well implemented, tools to investigate other forms of research misconduct are rudimentary and labour-intensive. To cope with the rising challenge of research misconduct, further development of automatic tools and routine validation of these methods is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Center for Open Science (OSF) (https://osf.io/mq89w).

A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

BACKGROUND

The areas of Research Ethics (RE) and Research Integrity (RI) are rapidly evolving. Cases of research misconduct, other transgressions related to RE and RI, and forms of ethically questionable behaviors have been frequently published. The objective of this scoping review was to collect RE and RI cases, analyze their main characteristics, and discuss how these cases are represented in the scientific literature.

METHODS

The search included cases involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without language or date restriction. Data relating to the articles and the cases were extracted from case descriptions.

RESULTS

A total of 14,719 records were identified, and 388 items were included in the qualitative synthesis. The papers contained 500 case descriptions. After applying the eligibility criteria, 238 cases were included in the analysis. In the case analysis, fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%), followed by patient safety issues (11.1%) and plagiarism (6.9%). 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities. Paper retraction was the most prevalent sanction (45.4%), followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Case descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields compared to its proportion in scientific publications. The cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of misbehaviors. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations, and from recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

Survey of trends in authorship assignment in gynecologic oncology: Keeping score and playing fair

•

30.6% of responding gynecologic oncologists reported assignment of authorship that did not meet ICMJE criteria.

•

The majority reported that ICMJE criteria were generalizable, helpful and considered non-adherence as scientific misconduct.

•

Fellows and faculty in their first five year of practice were more likely not adhere to ICMJE authorship criteria.

Authorship confers credit to those responsible for a publication. In 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria were founded to standardize authorship assignment. We sought to investigate practices and values in authorship assignment in Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members. An anonymous online survey was distributed to SGO members from 09/2018–10/2018. Three multivariable logistic regression models were fit to predict ICJME authorship acceptance, assignment and denial. Of 1111 members surveyed, 266 responses were received (23.9%); 30.6% reported prior authorship assignment that did not meet ICMJE criteria, and 18.8% (n = 50) reported a history of accepting authorship not meeting ICJME criteria. Reasons for non-adherence included: inclusion of the author’s patients in the study (59.3%), resumé building (45.7%), and networking for career advancement (22.2%). The majority responded that ICJME criteria were generalizable (91.3%), helpful (83.8%), and considered non-adherence as scientific misconduct (66.0%). On multivariable analysis, practice duration of 5–20 years (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16, 0.99, p < 0.05) or > 20 years (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08, 0.59, p < 0.05) were significant predictors for adherence with ICMJE authorship assignment compared to fellows and those in practice < 5 years. Similarly, practice duration of 5–20 years (HR 10.0, 95% CI 2.0, 49.2, p < 0.05) or > 20 years (HR 25.9, 95% CI 1.06, 3.9, p < 0.05) were significant predictors for denial of authorship assignment compared to fellows and those in practice < 5 years. While the majority of respondents report that ICJME criteria are helpful, adherence to these criteria is a concern, especially in fellows and early-career faculty.

Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.

A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed

Background:

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and a warning for readers in relation to publications that contain serious flaws or erroneous data. As a result of growth and development of Iranian publications in the last two decades, that brings unethical behavior of researchers led to retraction of their publications. We aimed to investigate Iranian retracted publications indexed in PubMed database.

Methods:

All Iranian retracted publications published in PubMed up to Dec 2017 have been retrieved. Bibliographic information of retracted publications, retraction notice, time lag between article publication date and the date of retraction notice, reasons of retraction, Issuer of retraction and acknowledge information of retracted publication were recorded. Additionally, citation data of retracted publications before 2013 were analyzed.

Results:

Overall, 164 Iranian retracted publications were identified. Meantime lag was 20.8 months. “Islamic Azad University” and “Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS)” were two affiliations that have received highest number of retracted publications. The most issuer of retraction publications was editor-in-chief and the most mentioned reasons for retractions were authorship issues, plagiarism, and redundant publication. Thirty-three (20.12%) publications have received funds from various agencies. Citation study of retracted publications indicates that these publications have received 789 citations (Citation per publication=11.6).

Conclusion:

Although Iranian retracted publications represent small portion of all Iranian publications, but the number of retracted publications has increased. More than half of retracted publications have had authorship issues and plagiarism that requires more attention to research ethics authorities.

Historicizing the crisis of scientific misconduct in Indian science

A flurry of discussions about plagiarism and predatory publications in recent times has brought the issue of scientific misconduct in India to the fore. The debate has framed scientific misconduct in India as a recent phenomenon. This article questions that framing, which rests on the current tendency to define and police scientific misconduct as a matter of individual behavior. Without ignoring the role of individuals, this article contextualizes their actions by calling attention to the conduct of the institutions, as well as social and political structures that are historically responsible for governing the practice of science in India since the colonial period. Scientific (mis)conduct, in other words, is here examined as a historical phenomenon borne of the interaction between individuals' aspirations and the systems that impose, measure, and reward scientific output in particular ways. Importantly, historicizing scientific misconduct in this way also underscores scientist-driven initiatives and regulatory interventions that have placed India at the leading edge of reform. With the formal establishment of the Society for Scientific Values in 1986, Indian scientists became the first national community worldwide to monitor research integrity in an institutionally organized way.

Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ)

Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.

Insight into modern-day plagiarism: The science of pseudo research

In today's world, when there is a rapid surge of biomedical publications, maintaining research integrity of articles is of prime importance. It is expected that the submitted work is genuine of submitting authors’. Ease in the availability of these digitally published biomedical papers and pressure to publish for academic and professional advancement had resulted in numerous novice scientists and students falling into unethical practice of plagiarizing others’ work to get the job done quickly. Plagiarists are continuously in search of finding new and easy ways to plagiarize someone else's work, currently seen as different forms of plagiarism. Hence, this narrative review intends to help young and upcoming researchers to understand plagiarism, its type, the reason for plagiarists getting involved in that, and possible ways to detect and prevent it.

Street research market: dealing with scientific misconduct in Iran

Background

Scientific misconduct is a prevalent phenomenon with many undesirable consequences. In Iran, no original research have been done about scientific fraud. So, this study aimed at describing a challenging research misconduct in Iran, its related causes, and the ways Iranian authorities deal with it.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, through a two-year period, all the advertisements installed in the study sites were collected and the content analysis was performed. Semi-structured interviews were held with experts for discovering the causes of misconduct. Also, published issues were collected for review of the laws on confronting the fraud in Iran.

Results

The content analysis resulted in identifying four categories of misconduct issues: advertising approach, types of services, outcome guarantee, and justifying the academic credit. Besides, reviewing the related literature indicated that Iranian government and the responsible authorities have recently established serious penalties for dealing with scientific misconduct through legislation.

Conclusions

This study revealed some misconduct in scientific activities which has persuaded the authorities to enforce strict rules to deal with it. The effectiveness of this legislation needs to be investigated in some further studies.

How prevalent is plagiarism among college students? Anonymity preserving evidence from Austrian undergraduates

Plagiarism in academia is endangering the veracity of any discipline. Yet, estimating the actual prevalence of plagiarism is difficult due to the sensitive nature of freely admitting actual offenses. Respondents to questions on plagiarism oftentimes conceal potential misconduct and thus refrain from truthfully responding to such a sensitive question. In this work, we therefore employ item-count techniques to provide a better estimate of the prevalence in academia using a student sample. Our results drawing on 428 students from an Austrian university reveal a high prevalence of plagiarism (around 22 percentage points). We also assess the robustness of the findings using placebo measurements. Our results suggest a much higher prevalence of plagiarism then comparison studies when respondents can be convincingly assured of their anonymity.

Retraction: The "Other Face" of Research Collaboration?

The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.

Publishing as an Indicator of Scientific Research Quality and Ethics: The Case of Law Journals from Moldova

This paper analyses the way articles are published in scientific journals in the field of law in the Republic of Moldova, including an experiment with a previously published article. Lack of compliance with journal publishing standards, including peer reviewing of articles, leads to the fact that virtually any article can be published. The examined journals do not perform their natural functions, but are rather used by researchers to report that they have scientific outcomes. The study allows us to consider that publishing in scientific journals is an indicator of the quality of scientific research, as well as an indicator of compliance with scientific research ethical principles. Scientific misconduct and lack of scientific meritocracy that are characteristic of some of the post-Soviet science, are very well reflected in the law field in the Republic of Moldova.

A Reflective Account of a Research Ethics Course for an Interdisciplinary Cohort of Graduate Students

The graduate course in research ethics in the Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering at the National University of Singapore consists of a semester long mandatory course titled: "Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity." The course provides students with guiding principles for appropriate conduct in the professional and social settings of scientific research and in making morally weighted and ethically sound decisions when confronted with moral dilemmas. It seeks to enhance understanding and appreciation of the moral reasoning underpinning various rules and legislative constraints associated with research subjects and procedures. Further, students are trained to critically analyse cases and issues associated with scientific misconduct preparing them to act in a responsible and effective manner should they encounter such cases. The diverse background and training of the cohort also provide a unique setting and opportunity for student-initiated collaborative interdisciplinary learning. This article offers a reflective account of the course and some preliminary insights into learning outcomes.

[Scientific misconduct: A major threat for medical research]

Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) and detrimental research practices (selective reporting of data, inappropriate citation practice, ghostwriting) are admitted respectively by 2 % and 33 % of researchers. The consequences of scientific misconduct and detrimental research practices are disastrous, both for the doctors, who are the most affected researchers in view of the number of retracted articles, and for the patients, victims of false information that may have health consequences. In order to fight against the causes (promotion of doctors and allocation of resources to clinical wards and laboratories on purely quantitative research criteria, lack of training in scientific integrity in medical studies, heterogenous quality of reviewing, legal impunity), there are legislative, academic, technological and editorial solutions, but radical and urgent cultural change is needed first.

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media

Most studies of research integrity in the general media focus on the coverage of specific cases of misconduct. This paper tries to provide a more general, long-term perspective by analysing media discourse about research integrity and related themes in the Italian and United Kingdom daily press from 2000 to 2016. The results, based on a corpus of 853 articles, show that media coverage largely mirrors debates about integrity and misconduct. In fact, salient themes in the news include the importance to overcome the so-called "rotten apple" paradigm; the key role of public trust in science; and the need to address flaws in the peer-review system.

Good Scientific Practice: Developing a Curriculum for Medical Students in Germany

German medical schools have not yet sufficiently introduced students to the field of good scientific practice (GSP). In order to prevent scientific misconduct and to foster scientific integrity, courses on GSP must be an integral part of the curriculum of medical students. Based on a review of the literature, teaching units and materials for two courses on GSP were developed and tested in a pilot course. The pilot course was accompanied by a pre-post evaluation that assessed students' knowledge and attitudes towards scientific integrity and scientific misconduct. A syllabus was designed that comprised the following six topics: theoretical foundations of GSP; scientific publishing; empirical data; scientific supervision and teamwork; clinical research; personal interests. The comparison pre versus post-intervention yielded statistically significant changes in regard to the participants' knowledge and attitude toward all forms of scientific misconduct treated in the course. As the majority of participants was not familiar with the fundamental regulations or guidelines of GSP, it seems crucial to train students in actively applying such norms to real-world conflicts. Students' unfamiliarity with the fundamentals of GSP can be linked to the fact that many students have already experienced forms of scientific misconduct. Thus, GSP syllabi should be closely adjusted to a student's realm of experience. All in all, courses on GSP can be seen as a potential means to increase the number of young scholars.

What Crisis? Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct

This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices elicited from a sample of 1215 management researchers. We find that misconduct (research that was either fabricated or falsified) is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations (method inadequacy, omission or withholding of contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). When it comes to potential methodological improvements, those that are skeptical about the empirical body of work being published see merit in replication studies. Yet, a sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies, which points to hidden costs and limited incentives for data sharing in management research.

On Some Possible Ramifications of the "Microplastics in Fish" Case

Cases of research misconduct in the ecological and environmental sciences appear to be relatively rare. A controversial paper published in Science in 2016 documenting the effects of microplastics on the feeding and innate behaviours of fish larvae has recently been retracted, with the authors found guilty of scientific misconduct. In addition to the expected fallout, such as individual and institutional reputational damage from a research misconduct finding, this case has two possibly wider-ranging ramifications. Firstly, there may be a presumptive notion that a strong negative effect could be more successfully published than a neutral effect. This presumption would belie the true stringency and rigor of research adopted by workers in the field. Secondly, the case may have a negative impact on the public's perception of and trust in legitimate and good science that addresses critical environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change.