[Is COVID-19 a hype?]

The answer to the question whether COVID-19 is a hype or not depends on how we define a hype. The article loosely builds on philosophical discussions about hypes in knowledge work and information sciences. The central idea is to make clear that hypes always imply a certain overload of information and that the paradoxical outcome of this that it is not just information that is piling up but also disinformation. It is argued that it is in this sense (and only in this sense) that COVID-19 is a hype. How we respond to this hype depends very strongly on subjective sensitivities towards both information and desinformation.

Korean medical students' attitudes toward academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicenter study

PURPOSE

This study investigated medical students' attitudes toward academic misconduct that occurs in the learning environment during the pre-clinical and clinical periods.

METHODS

Third-year medical students from seven medical schools were invited to participate in this study. A total of 337 of the 557 (60.5%) students completed an inventory assessing their attitudes toward academic misconduct. The inventory covered seven factors: scientific misconduct (eight items), irresponsibility in class (six items), disrespectful behavior in patient care (five items), dishonesty in clerkship tasks (four items), free riding on group assignments (four items), irresponsibility during clerkship (two items), and cheating on examinations (one item).

RESULTS

Medical students showed a strict attitude toward academic misconduct such as cheating on examinations and disrespectful behavior in patient care, but they showed a less rigorous attitude toward dishonesty in clerkship tasks and irresponsibility in class. There was no difference in students' attitudes toward unprofessional behaviors by gender. The graduate medical school students showed a stricter attitude toward some factors of academic misconduct than the medical college students. This difference was significant for irresponsibility in class, disrespectful behavior in patient care, and free riding on group assignments.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates a critical vulnerability in medical students' professionalism toward academic integrity and responsibility. Further study evidence is needed to confirm whether this professionalism lapse is confined only to this population or is pervasive in other medical schools as well.

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.

Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications

It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the "pressures to publish" hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.

Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education

INTRODUCTION

Engaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this study seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices.

METHOD

In 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items adapted from three published surveys: two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale. The outcome variable was a self-reported misconduct score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability and correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression modelling.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In total, 590 researchers completed the survey. Results from the final regression model indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct score (b = -0.01, β = -0.22, t = -2.91, p <0.05), suggesting that older researchers tended to report less misconduct. On the other hand, those with more publications had higher misconduct scores (b = 0.001, β = 0.17, t = 3.27, p < 0.05) and, compared with researchers in the region of North America, researchers in Asia tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.21, β = 0.12, t = 2.84, p < 0.01). In addition, compared with those who defined their work role as clinician, those who defined their role as researcher tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.12, β = 0.13, t = 2.15, p < 0.05). Finally, publication pressure emerged as the strongest individual predictor of misconduct (b = 0.20, β = 0.34, t = 7.82, p < 0.01); the greater the publication pressure, the greater the reported misconduct. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct score, with publication pressure accounting for 10% of the variance in the outcome, above and beyond the other explanatory variables. Although correlational, these findings suggest several researcher characteristics and practice factors that could be targeted to address scientific misconduct and QRPs in HPE.

Questionable research practices in student final theses - Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor's perceived attitudes

Although questionable research practices (QRPs) and p-hacking have received attention in recent years, little research has focused on their prevalence and acceptance in students. Students are the researchers of the future and will represent the field in the future. Therefore, they should not be learning to use and accept QRPs, which would reduce their ability to produce and evaluate meaningful research. 207 psychology students and fresh graduates provided self-report data on the prevalence and predictors of QRPs. Attitudes towards QRPs, belief that significant results constitute better science or lead to better grades, motivation, and stress levels were predictors. Furthermore, we assessed perceived supervisor attitudes towards QRPs as an important predictive factor. The results were in line with estimates of QRP prevalence from academia. The best predictor of QRP use was students' QRP attitudes. Perceived supervisor attitudes exerted both a direct and indirect effect via student attitudes. Motivation to write a good thesis was a protective factor, whereas stress had no effect. Students in this sample did not subscribe to beliefs that significant results were better for science or their grades. Such beliefs further did not impact QRP attitudes or use in this sample. Finally, students engaged in more QRPs pertaining to reporting and analysis than those pertaining to study design. We conclude that supervisors have an important function in shaping students' attitudes towards QRPs and can improve their research practices by motivating them well. Furthermore, this research provides some impetus towards identifying predictors of QRP use in academia.

Research integrity among PhD students within clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark

INTRODUCTION

Responsible conduct of research is the basis for the credibility of all research. Research misconduct is defined as the fabrication, falsification or plagiarism committed willfully or grossly negligently in the planning, performing or reporting of research. We undertook a survey of knowledge of the attitudes towards and experiences with research misconduct among PhD students in clinical research.

METHODS

A questionnaire previously used in Swedish and Norwegian studies was distributed to PhD students (n = 330) affiliated with the Department of Clinical Research or Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark.

RESULTS

A total of 165 PhD students completed the questionnaire in full or in part, yielding an overall response rate of 50%. 18-34% reported to have heard (within the past year) about researchers who had plagiarised, falsified or fabricated data, or plagiarised publications. None reported this to occur in their own department. Few stated that they had felt under pressure to either falsify data (1%) or present results in a misleading way (3%). However, 22% stated to have felt an unethical pressure (within the past year) regarding the inclusion or order of authors.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that, albeit at a low frequency, research misconduct involving PhD students is taking place. Likewise, a high fraction of respondents reported to have been under pressure regarding authorships, which points to questionable research practices in clinical research.

FUNDING

not relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not relevant.

Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error

Retractions solicited by authors following the discovery of an unintentional error-what we henceforth call a "self-retraction"-are a new phenomenon of growing importance, about which very little is known. Here we present results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations and beliefs that accompanied the experience of a self-retraction. We identified retraction notes that unambiguously reported an honest error and that had been published between the years 2010 and 2015. We limited our sample to retractions with at least one co-author based in the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany or a Scandinavian country, and we invited these authors to a semi-structured interview. Fourteen authors accepted our invitation. Contrary to our initial assumptions, most of our interviewees had not originally intended to retract their paper. They had contacted the journal to request a correction and the decision to retract had been made by journal editors. All interviewees reported that having to retract their own publication made them concerned for their scientific reputation and career, often causing considerable stress and anxiety. Interviewees also encountered difficulties in communicating with the journal and recalled other procedural issues that had unnecessarily slowed down the process of self-retraction. Intriguingly, however, all interviewees reported how, contrary to their own expectations, the self-retraction had brought no damage to their reputation and in some cases had actually improved it. We also examined the ethical motivations that interviewees ascribed, retrospectively, to their actions and found that such motivations included a combination of moral and prudential (i.e. pragmatic) considerations. These preliminary results suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self-retraction.

Dishonesty in scientific research

Fraudulent business practices, such as those leading to the Enron scandal and the conviction of Bernard Madoff, evoke a strong sense of public outrage. But fraudulent or dishonest actions are not exclusive to the realm of big corporations or to evil individuals without consciences. Dishonest actions are all too prevalent in everyone's daily lives, because people are constantly encountering situations in which they can gain advantages by cutting corners. Whether it's adding a few dollars in value to the stolen items reported on an insurance claim form or dropping outlier data points from a figure to make a paper sound more interesting, dishonesty is part of the human condition. Here, we explore how people rationalize dishonesty, the implications for scientific research, and what can be done to foster a culture of research integrity.

Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher's career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

Does Exonerating an Accused Researcher Restore the Researcher's Credibility?

Scientific misconduct appears to be on the rise. However, an accused researcher may later be exonerated. The present research examines to what extent participants adhere to their attitude toward a researcher who allegedly committed academic misconduct after learning that the researcher is innocent. In two studies, participants in an exoneration and an uncorrected accusation condition learned that the ethics committee of a researcher’s university demanded the retraction of one of the researcher’s articles, whereas participants in a control condition did not receive this information. As intended, this manipulation led to a more favorable attitude toward the researcher in the control compared to the exoneration and the uncorrected accusation conditions (pre-exoneration attitude). Then, participants in the exoneration condition learned that the researcher was exonerated and that the article was not retracted. Participants in the uncorrected accusation and the control condition were not informed about the exoneration. Results revealed that the exoneration effectively worked, in that participants in the exoneration condition had a more favorable attitude (post-exoneration attitude) toward the researcher than did participants in the uncorrected accusation condition. Moreover, the post-exoneration attitude toward the researcher was similar in the exoneration and the control conditions. Finally, in the exoneration condition only, participants’ post-exoneration attitude was more favorable than their pre-exoneration attitude. These findings suggest that an exoneration of an accused researcher restores the researcher’s credibility.

Scientific misconduct: a perspective from India

Misconduct in medical science research is an unfortunate reality. Science, for the most part, operates on the basis of trust. Researchers are expected to carry out their work and report their findings honestly. But, sadly, that is not how science always gets done. Reports keep surfacing from various countries about work being plagiarised, results which were doctored and data fabricated. Scientific misconduct is scourge afflicting the field of science, unfortunately with little impact in developing countries like India especially in health care services. A recent survey and a meta-analysis suggest that the few cases that do float up represents only tip of a large iceberg. This paper therefore highlights reasons for misconduct with steps that can be taken to reduce misconduct. Also the paper throws light on Indian scenario in relation to misconduct.

Perspective: research misconduct: the search for a remedy

Research misconduct-fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism-is an insidious problem in the scientific community today with the capacity to harm science, scientists, and the public. Federal agencies require that research trainees complete a course designed to deter such behavior, but the author could find no evidence to suggest that this effort has been effective. In fact, research shows that most cases of misconduct continue to go unreported.The author conducted a detailed examination of 146 individual Office of Research Integrity reports from 1992 to 2003 and determined that these acts of misconduct were the results of individual psychological traits and the circumstances in which the researchers found themselves. Therefore, a course in research misconduct, such as is now federally mandated, should not be expected to have a significant effect. However, a course developed specifically for support staff, who currently do not receive such training, might prove effective.Improving the quality of mentoring is essential to meaningfully deal with this issue. Therefore, the quality of mentorship should be a factor in the evaluation of training grants for funding. In addition, mentors should share responsibility for their trainees' published work. The whistleblower can also play a significant role in this effort. However, the potential whistleblower is deterred by a realistic fear of retaliation. Therefore, institutions must establish policies that acknowledge the whistleblower's contribution to the integrity of science and provide truly effective protection from retaliation. An increase in whistleblowing activity would provide greater, earlier exposure of misconduct and serve as a deterrent.

Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk?

BACKGROUND

Medical research so flawed as to be retracted may put patients at risk by influencing treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To explore hypotheses that more patients are put at risk if a retracted paper appears in a journal with a high impact factor (IF) so that the paper is widely read; is written by a 'repeat offender' author who has produced other retracted research; or is a clinical trial.

METHODS

English language papers (n=788) retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Only those papers retracting research with humans or freshly derived human material were included; 180 retracted primary papers (22.8%) met inclusion criteria. Subjects enrolled and patients treated were tallied, both in the retracted primary studies and in 851 secondary studies that cited a retracted primary paper.

RESULTS

Retracted papers published in high-IF journals were cited more often (p=0.0004) than those in low-IF journals, but there was no difference between high- and low-IF papers in subjects enrolled or patients treated. Retracted papers published by 'repeat offender' authors did not enrol more subjects or treat more patients than papers by one-time offenders, nor was there a difference in number of citations. However, retracted clinical trials treated more patients (p=0.0002) and inspired secondary studies that put more patients at risk (p=0.0019) than did other kinds of medical research.

CONCLUSIONS

If the goal is to minimise risk to patients, the appropriate focus is on clinical trials. Clinical trials form the foundation of evidence-based medicine; hence, the integrity of clinical trials must be protected.

Science ethics education part II: changes in attitude toward scientific fraud among medical researchers after a short course in science ethics

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of the short science ethics courses on the knowledge of basic principles of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and on the attitude toward scientific fraud among young biomedical researchers.

METHODS

A total of 361 attendees of the course on science ethics answered a specially designed anonymous multiple- choice questionnaire before and after a one-day course in science ethics. The educational course consisted of 10 lectures: 1) Good scientific practice - basic principles; 2) Publication ethics; 3) Scientific fraud - fabrication, falsification, plagiarism; 4) Conflict of interests; 5) Underpublishing; 6) Mentorship; 7) Authorship; 8) Coauthorship; 9) False authorship; 10) Good scientific practice - ethical codex of science.

RESULTS

In comparison to their answers before the course, a significantly higher (p<0.001) number of students qualified their knowledge of science ethics as sufficient after the course was completed. That the wrongdoers deserve severe punishment for all types of scientific fraud, including false authorship, thought significantly (p<0.001) more attendees than before the course, while notably fewer attendees (p<0.001) would give or accept undeserved authorship

CONCLUSION

Even a short course in science ethics had a great impact on the attendees, enlarging their knowledge of responsible conduct of research and changing their previous, somewhat opportunistic, behavior regarding the reluctance to react publicly and punish the wrongdoers.

Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research?

BACKGROUND

Clinical papers so flawed that they are eventually retracted may put patients at risk. Patient risk could arise in a retracted primary study or in any secondary study that draws ideas or inspiration from a primary study.

METHODS

To determine how many patients were put at risk, we evaluated 788 retracted English-language papers published from 2000 to 2010, describing new research with humans or freshly derived human material. These primary papers-together with all secondary studies citing them-were evaluated using ISI Web of Knowledge. Excluded from study were 468 basic science papers not studying fresh human material; 88 reviews presenting older data; 22 case reports; 7 papers retracted for journal error and 23 papers unavailable on Web of Knowledge. Overall, 180 retracted primary papers (22.8%) met the inclusion criteria. Subjects enrolled and patients treated in 180 primary studies and 851 secondary studies were combined.

RESULTS

Retracted papers were cited over 5000 times, with 93% of citations being research related, suggesting that ideas promulgated in retracted papers can influence subsequent research. Over 28 000 subjects were enrolled-and 9189 patients were treated-in 180 retracted primary studies. Over 400 000 subjects were enrolled-and 70 501 patients were treated-in 851 secondary studies which cited a retracted paper. Papers retracted for fraud (n=70) treated more patients per study (p<0.01) than papers retracted for error (n=110).

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients are put at risk by retracted studies. These are conservative estimates, as only patients enrolled in published clinical studies were tallied.

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.

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

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

Mentoring and research misconduct: an analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases

We are reporting on how involved the mentor was in promoting responsible research in cases of research misconduct. We reviewed the USPHS misconduct files of the Office of Research Integrity. These files are created by Institutions who prosecute a case of possible research misconduct; ORI has oversight review of these investigations. We explored the role of the mentor in the cases of trainee research misconduct on three specific behaviors that we believe mentors should perform with their trainee: (1) review source data, (2) teach specific research standards and (3) minimize stressful work situations. We found that almost three quarters of the mentors had not reviewed the source data and two thirds had not set standards. These two behaviors are positively correlated. We did not see convincing evidence in the records that mentors were causing stress, but it was apparent in the convicted trainees' confessions that over 50% experienced some kind of stress. Secondary data, while not created for this research purpose, allows us to look at concrete research behaviors that are otherwise not very researchable. We believe it is important for mentors and institutions to devote more attention to teaching mentors about the process of education and their responsibilities in educating the next generation of scientists. This becomes a critical issue for large research groups who need to determine who is in charge educating, supervising and assuring data integrity.

Is there an effective approach to deterring students from plagiarizing?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of plagiarism detection software and penalty for plagiarizing in detecting and deterring plagiarism among medical students. The study was a continuation of previously published research in which second-year medical students from 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 school years were required to write an essay based on one of the four scientific articles offered by the instructor. Students from 2004/2005 (N = 92) included in present study were given the same task. Topics of two of the four articles were considered less complex, and two were more complex. One less and one more complex articles were available only as hardcopies, whereas the other two were available in electronic format. The students from 2001/2002 (N = 111) were only told to write an original essay, whereas the students from 2002/2003 (N = 87) were additionally warned against plagiarism, explained what plagiarism was, and how to avoid it. The students from 2004/2005 were warned that their essays would be examined by plagiarism detection software and that those who had plagiarized would be penalized. Students from 2004/2005 plagiarized significantly less of their essays than students from the previous two groups (2% vs. 17% vs. 21%, respectively, P < 0.001). Over time, students more frequently choose articles with more complex subjects (P < 0.001) and articles in electronic format (P < 0.001) as a source for their essays, but it did not influence the rate of plagiarism. Use of plagiarism detection software in evaluation of essays and consequent penalties had effectively deterred students from plagiarizing.

Perceptions of scientific misconduct among graduate allied health students relative to ethics education and gender

A study was conducted to determine the influence of ethics education and gender on students' perceptions of scientific misconduct. Subjects were graduate students from five allied health professions programs at a single university, who were asked to complete an online survey consisting of 48 questions (dichotomous and Likert-scale questions): 36 questions assessed the perceptions of students regarding the concerns of scientific misconduct (dependent variable), 10 were demographic questions, and 2 were free-text questions soliciting clarification of any responses. Out of 202 graduate students, 72 students (54 female, 17 male) completed the survey. Forty (56%) of the participants had taken at least one ethics course, while 31 (44%) had not taken any ethics courses. Analysis of Scientific Integrity Scores calculated from survey responses of health professions students revealed that students who had taken an ethics course scored significantly higher on the scale of the use of humans in research than students who had not taken an ethics course. Students who had taken medical ethics courses scored significantly higher on the scale regarding genetics research than students who had taken other ethics courses. Women scored significantly higher than men on the scale regarding the use of animals in research.

Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey

OBJECTIVE

To report results from a national survey of coordinators and managers of clinical research studies in the US on their perceptions of and experiences with scientific misconduct.

METHODS

Data were collected using the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised. Eligible responses were received from 1645 of 5302 (31%) surveys sent to members of the Association of Clinical Research Professionals and to subscribers of Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice, between February 2004 and January 2005.

FINDINGS

Overall, the perceived frequency of misconduct was low. Differences were noted between workplaces with regard to perceived pressures on investigators and research coordinators, and on the effectiveness of the regulatory environment in reducing misconduct. First-hand experience with an incident of misconduct was reported by 18% of respondents. Those with first-hand knowledge of misconduct were more likely to report working in an academic medical setting, and to report that a typical research coordinator would probably do nothing if aware that a principal investigator or research staff member was involved in an incident of misconduct.

CONCLUSION

These findings expand the knowledge on scientific misconduct by adding new information from the perspective of research coordinators. The findings provide some data supporting the influence of workplace climate on misconduct and also on the perceived effectiveness of institutional policies to reduce scientific misconduct.

The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire—Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and Psychometric Testing

PURPOSE

The overall purposes of this article are to report the development of a survey instrument, Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) that elicits the perceptions of research coordinators managing clinical trials about the various aspects of scientific misconduct and to present psychometric analyses for the SMQ-R.

METHODS

A panel of five researchers and research coordinators reviewed the original SMQ (Rankin and Esteeves, 1997) and suggested an additional 42 items based on the review of the literature and their own experiences in research. The SMQ-Revised (SMQ-R) consists of 68 closed-choice items in six sections and one section with 12 open-ended questions. The SMQ-R was sent to 5302 persons who were members of the Association for Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) or subscribers to Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice (CCRP).

FINDINGS

Internal consistency of subscales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and ranged from .83 to .84. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test construct validity of the instrument subscales. The factor structure was assessed with the principal factors method, using the squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates followed by varimax (orthogonal) or biquartimax (oblique) rotations. Analyses revealed five distinct factors among three subscales. Construct validity for the SMQ-R was also assessed by testing hypothesized relationships using the known groups approach.

CONCLUSION

The current effort demonstrated the usefulness of the SMQ-R in obtaining information from a national sample of experienced research coordinators about their perceptions of the prevalence of different types of scientific misconduct and of factors that influence the occurrence of misconduct. The psychometric evaluation of the SMQ-R suggests good internal consistency for most subscales and suggests adequate construct validity of the instrument as a whole. The analyses also suggest that further refinement of the instrument for future studies is warranted.

Research integrity and misconduct: a clarification of the concepts

The commercialization of research and the ever changing scientific environment has led scholars to shift the focus from promoting research integrity to regulating misconduct. As a result, most literature explains research integrity in terms of avoidance of misconduct. The purpose of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion on research integrity and research misconduct. This article explores the meaning of research integrity and research misconduct, and how research integrity can be promoted to ensure safer research and scholarship. We believe that the discussion can help clarify some hazy areas in the research and publication processes, and appreciate some crucial aspects that they may have seen taken for granted. The purpose of this article is to share with the readers some clarification or analysis of the two concepts namely: research integrity and misconduct. The objectives are: (1) To explore and analyse the concepts of research integrity and research misconduct from the educational or developmental perspective and not the legal perspective as others in literature have done. (2) To stimulate the reflection and discussion on strategies to promote research integrity and thus prevent research misconduct Literature review and concept analysis was undertaken to clarify the two concepts. We argue that the two concepts can be viewed along a continuum, i.e. where research integrity ends, research misconduct starts. We also argue that it is the responsibility of the research community at large to always ensure that the scientific ethics balance is maintained throughout the research process to ensure research integrity and avoid research misconduct. We also argue that research integrity is interlinked with morality while misconduct is interlinked with immorality.

Research misconduct and crime lessons from criminal science on preventing misconduct and promoting integrity

For 200 years, criminologists theorized that delinquent and criminal acts arise from deviant psychological states (such as irrationality or immorality) and/or social conditions that produce these psychological states. This theoretical perspective, which is being duplicated in most efforts to understand and control research misconduct, has not been productive. More recently, criminological perspectives have emerged, emphasizing situational factors that enhance or restrict the opportunity for illegal or imprudent behavior. These so-called "opportunity" theories have been shown to have practical value in reducing crime rates. We explore the promise of these newer theories for the responsible conduct of research (RCR).

The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit?

The efforts of some institutional review boards (IRBs) to exercise what is viewed as appropriate oversight may contribute to deceit on the part of investigators who feel unjustly treated. An organizational justice paradigm provides a useful context for exploring why certain IRB behaviors may lead investigators to believe that they have not received fair treatment. These feelings may, in turn, lead to intentional deception by investigators that IRBs will rarely detect. Paradoxically, excessive protective zeal by IRBs may actually encourage misconduct by some investigators. The authors contend that, by fostering a climate in which investigators perceive that they receive fair and unbiased treatment, IRBs optimize the likelihood of collegial compliance with appropriate participant protections.

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.

Seven ways to plagiarize: handling real allegations of research misconduct

As the research integrity officer at my university for two years, I handled eight allegations of plagiarism. These eight cases show that initial appearances can be mistaken, that policies for handling allegations of research misconduct cannot cover every contingency, and that many cases can be resolved collegially without resort to formal procedures.