How to bring peer review ghostwriters out of the dark

Early career researchers are frequent and valuable contributors to peer review. Systemic changes that acknowledge this fact would result in ethical co-reviewing, peer reviews of greater quality, and a reduction in peer reviewer burden.

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.

Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data

Recent reports suggest that there has been an increase in the number of retractions and corrections of published articles due to post-publication detection of problematic data. Moreover, fraudulent data and sloppy science have long-term effects on the scientific literature and subsequent projects based on false and unreproducible claims. At the JCI, we have introduced several data screening checks for manuscripts prior to acceptance in an attempt to reduce the number of post-publication corrections and retractions, with the ultimate goal of increasing confidence in the papers we publish.

Similarity Analysis of Korean Medical Literature and Its Association with Efforts to Improve Research and Publication Ethics

In the present study, the frequency of research misconduct in Korean medical papers was analyzed using the similarity check software iThenticate®. All Korean papers written in English that were published in 2009 and 2014 in KoreaMed Synapse were identified. In total, 23,848 papers were extracted. 4,050 Journal Articles of them were randomly selected for similarity analysis. The average Similarity Index of the 4,050 papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 10.15% and 5.62%, respectively. And 357 (8.8%) had a Similarity Index of ≥ 20%. Authors considered a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% as suspected research misconduct. It was found that iThenticate® cannot functionally process citations without double quotation marks. Papers with a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% were thus individually checked for detecting such text-matching errors to accurately identify papers with suspected research misconduct. After correcting text-matching errors, 142 (3.5% of the 4,050 papers) were suspected of research misconduct. The annual frequency of these papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 5.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The decrease was associated with the introduction of CrossCheck by KoreaMed and the frequent use of similarity check software. The majority (81%) had Similarity Indices between 20% and 40%. The fact suggested that low Similarity index does not necessarily mean low possibility of research misconduct. It should be noted that, although iThenticate® provides a fundamental basis for detecting research misconduct, the final judgment should be made by experts.

The Legitimate Name of a Fungal Plant Pathogen and the Ethics of Publication in the Era of Traceability

When more scientists describe independently the same species under different valid Latin names, a case of synonymy occurs. In such a case, the international nomenclature rules stipulate that the first name to appear on a peer-reviewed publication has priority over the others. Based on a recent episode involving priority determination between two competing names of the same fungal plant pathogen, this letter wishes to open a discussion on the ethics of scientific publications and points out the necessity of a correct management of the information provided through personal communications, whose traceability would prevent their fraudulent or accidental manipulation.

The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits

Nearly 90 % of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we discuss the laws that empower federal agencies that can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct investigations pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) are overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over the ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits of the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Specifically, sufficient data do not need to be retained by U.S. research institutions funded by HHS or NSF to allow effective audit of why allegations of research misconduct are dismissed before being seen by faculty inquiry or investigative committees. U.S. federal Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the research misconduct oversight process, would allow a determination of whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. In particular, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

[Drifts and pernicious effects of the quantitative evaluation of research: the misuse of bibliometrics]

The quantitative evaluation of scientific research relies increasingly on bibliometric indicators of publications and citations. We present the issues raised by the simplistic use of these methods and recall the dangers of using poorly built indicators and technically defective rankings that do not measure the dimensions they are supposed to measure, for example the <<quality>> of publications, laboratories or universities. We show that francophone journals are particularly susceptible to suffer from the bad uses of too simplistic bibliometric rankings of scientific journals.

China's rise as a major contributor to science and technology

In the past three decades, China has become a major contributor to science and technology. China now employs an increasingly large labor force of scientists and engineers at relatively high earnings and produces more science and engineering degrees than the United States at all levels, particularly bachelor's. China's research and development expenditure has been rising. Research output in China has been sharply increasing since 2002, making China the second largest producer of scientific papers after the United States. The quality of research by Chinese scientists has also been improving steadily. However, China's rise in science also faces serious difficulties, partly attributable to its rigid, top-down administrative system, with allegations of scientific misconduct trending upward.

Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

There is a dearth of information on the prevalence of scientific misconduct from Nigeria.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed at determining the prevalence of scientific misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria. Factors associated with the prevalence were ascertained.

METHOD

A descriptive study of researchers who attended a scientific conference in 2010 was conducted using the adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R).

RESULTS

Ninety-one researchers (68.9%) admitted having committed at least one of the eight listed forms of scientific misconduct. Disagreement about authorship was the most common form of misconduct committed (36.4%) while plagiarism was the least (9.2%). About 42% of researchers had committed falsification of data or plagiarism. Analysis of specific acts of misconduct showed that committing plagiarism was inversely associated with years in research (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02); falsifying data was related to perceived low effectiveness of the institution's rules and procedures for reducing scientific misconduct (X(2) = 6.44, p-value = 0.01); and succumbing to pressure from study sponsor to engage in unethical practice was related to sex of researcher (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The emergent data from this study is a cause for serious concern and calls for prompt intervention. The best response to reducing scientific misconduct will proceed from measures that contain both elements of prevention and enforcement. Training on research ethics has to be integrated into the curriculum of undergraduate and postgraduate students while provision should be made for in-service training of researchers. Penalties against acts of scientific misconduct should be enforced at institutional and national levels.

A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences

Among the many forms of research misconduct, publishing fraudulent data is considered to be serious where the confidence and validity of the research is detrimentally undermined. In this study, the trend of 303 retracted publications from 44 authors (with more than three retracted publications each) was analysed. The results showed that only 6.60% of the retracted publications were single-authored and the discovery of fraudulent publications had reduced from 52.24 months (those published before the year 2000) to 33.23 months (those published on the year 2000 and onwards). It appears that with the widely accessible public databases like PubMed, fraudulent publications can be detected more easily. The different approaches adopted by authors who had previous publications retracted are also discussed herein.

The Role of Culture in Research Misconduct

There seems to be a taboo against discussing the role culture or national origin might play in research misconduct. Still, some observers wonder why so many scientists representing foreign cultures are among those found guilty of misconduct. Even after examining the scant available data, whether foreign nationals are disproportionately represented among Office of Research Integrity (ORI) respondents remains unclear. The lack of data, however, does not negate culture as a possible explanatory variable in research misconduct. Applying theories from sociological criminology, the author posits that the culture some researchers bring may be at odds with the norms of academic science and may emphasize ends more than means. As such, culture simply may be one of several etiological factors in research misconduct and should be considered in the spirit of objective scientific inquiry. Acknowledging the role of culture in the adherence to research ethics underscores the importance of education and training of both researchers and administrators in the responsible conduct of research and cultural diversity.

Shifts in guidelines for ethical scientific conduct: how public and private organizations create and change norms of research integrity

We analyze the activities and actors involved in articulating and diffusing guidelines for ethical scientific conduct from 1975 to the present. We use a theoretical framework of institutional change at the organizational-field level to examine the co-evolution of the structure of the organizational field of 'scientific research' and its institutional logic. Public agencies have long provided funding to US universities to support faculty research, expecting that implicit norms of scientific conduct would guide behavior. Growing publicity about research fraud in the late 1960s and early 1970s triggered a shift from implicit norms to explicit behavioral proscriptions, with strong administrative oversight. As private sources of research funding exert new pressures on research behavior, public-private partnerships are emerging to articulate explicit, yet voluntary prescriptive norms of research integrity. The analysis demonstrates the co-evolution and co-dependence of changes in the identity and strength of influential actors in the field of scientific research and changes in the norms of scientific conduct. We examine how the normative guidelines have been constructed over time, illustrating the persistence of earlier norms as the foundation for current guidelines. We conclude with implications for future research conduct.

Prevention over cure: the administrative rationale for education in the responsible conduct of research

The value of responsible conduct of research (RCR) education from an administrative perspective can be summed up in the oft-used adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The National Academy of Sciences has underscored the importance of RCR education in three major reports relating public trust in research to the perception and reality of integrity within the field. Compliance and integrity cannot simply be hoped for. Rising numbers of reported cases of research misconduct support this view. This scenario calls for institutions to provide an environment where research integrity is a fundamental prerequisite. Supporting this notion is the adoption by federal oversight agencies of the compliance elements delineated in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations as a guide for determining whether an institution promotes a culture of integrity. RCR education is most valuable to the administrator in raising the awareness of researchers regarding compliance and integrity issues and thereby reducing the risk of infraction. In turn, the overall level of confidence among users and supporters may be improved also. Therefore, RCR education has become a primary operational arm of administration in the quest for institutional stability.

The proper conduct of research

Scientific misconduct has garnered recent attention by the media over scandals concerning falsification and fabrication of data surrounding potentially promising breakthroughs in stem-cell research, allegations of plagiarism at a U.S. university, and financial conflicts of interest between researchers and drug companies. While this makes for interesting copy, discussion of scientific fraud provides an excellent opportunity to review ethical standards for research and examine the conflicts that confront researchers today. This review specifically focuses on five areas that involve scientific integrity-plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, authorship, and conflict of interest-as well as nuances in each area that even senior investigators may not be aware of (e.g., self-plagiarism). The standards for ethical conductance of research discussed in this review are those set by many scientific, peer-reviewed journals and by federal and private granting agencies, and therefore it highlights the expectations and guidelines surrounding manuscript and grant submissions and review, and the consequences associated with violations. This review is intended to stimulate discussion among readers and assess what is necessary to become a good, competitive, but ethical researcher, especially in an era of shrinking financial resources for research.