RESUMEN

The founders of PubPeer envisioned their website as an online form of a "journal club" that would facilitate post-publication peer review. Recently, PubPeer comments have led to a significant number of research misconduct proceedings - a development that could not have been anticipated when the current federal research misconduct regulations were developed two decades ago. Yet the number, frequency, and velocity of PubPeer comments identifying data integrity concerns, and institutional and government practices that treat all such comments as potential research misconduct allegations, have overwhelmed institutions and threaten to divert attention and resources away from other research integrity initiatives. Recent, high profile research misconduct cases accentuate the increasing public interest in research integrity and make it inevitable that the use of platforms such as PubPeer to challenge research findings will intensify. This article examines the origins of PubPeer and its central role in the modern era of online-based scouring of scientific publications for potential problems and outlines the challenges that institutions must manage in addressing issues identified on PubPeer. In conclusion, we discuss some potential enhancements to the investigatory process specified under federal regulations that could, if implemented, allow institutions to manage some of these challenges more efficiently.

RESUMEN

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are authors aware when they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in the medically assisted reproduction (MAR) field? DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the citation pattern from corresponding authors who had cited a retracted article. A dataset of retracted articles in the MAR field was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch. A complete list of published articles that cited each retracted article was retrieved. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who had cited a retracted paper in their study. RESULTS: The survey revealed a significant lack of awareness among authors, with 78.7% unaware that they had cited retracted articles. This lack of awareness was attributed to insufficient notification mechanisms within research databases and journals, alongside a reliance on previously stored copies of manuscripts. A notable finding was that reference checks were typically performed by a single author, with no instances of retraction concerns raised during the peer-review process. Only a small fraction (17.8%) of respondents reported verifying retraction notices on both journal websites and scientific databases. CONCLUSIONS: Correcting publications that contain references which are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, but assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help to prevent errors.

RESUMEN

Researcher fraud is often easy and enticing in academic research, with little risk of detection. Cases of extensive fraud continue to occur. The amount of fraud that goes undetected is unknown and may be substantial. Three strategies for addressing researcher fraud are (a) retrospective investigations after allegations of fraud have been made, (b) sting operations that provide conclusive evidence of fraud as it occurs, and (c) data management practices that prevent the occurrence of fraud. Institutional and regulatory efforts to address researcher fraud have focused almost exclusively on the retrospective strategy. The retrospective approach is subject to controversy due to the limitations of post-hoc evidence in science, the difficulty in establishing who actually committed the fraud in some cases, the application of a legal standard of evidence that is much lower than the usual standards of evidence in science, and the lack of legal expertise by scientists investigating fraud. The retrospective strategy may be reliably effective primarily in cases of extensive, careless fraud. Sting operations can overcome these limitations and controversies, but are not feasible in many situations. Data management practices that are effective at preventing researcher fraud and unintentional errors are well-established in clinical trials regulated by government agencies, but appear to be largely unknown or unimplemented in most academic research. Established data management practices include: archiving secure copies of the raw data, audit trails, restricted access to the data and data collection processes, software validation, quality control checks, blinding, preregistration of data processing and analysis programs, and research audits that directly address fraud. Current discussions about data management in academic research focus on sharing data with little attention to practices that prevent intentional and unintentional errors. A designation or badge such as error-controlled data management could be established to indicate research that was conducted with data management practices that effectively address intentional and unintentional errors.

RESUMEN

Previous studies have found that factors such as gender and academic positions do not influence the severity of administrative actions taken by institutions. However, this study provides partly inconsistent evidence. It focuses on incidents of research misconduct in hospitals across Mainland China and explores factors related to punishment using a large cross-sectional dataset (N = 815). Regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between authorship order and the punishment intensity (p < 0.05). Under specific conditions, there was a significant correlation between the professional title (senior) and punishment intensity (p = 0.001), and an interaction between professional title and types of research misbehavior. Further analysis of simple effects showed that, in cases of fabrication and falsification, and combinations of multiple research misbehavior, researchers with senior titles received significantly lighter punishments compared to those with junior, intermediate, and associate senior titles (p < 0.05). The study unveils the potential accountability patterns (collective accountability and tiered punishment) that may be adopted by hospitals in Mainland China, as well as the challenges faced in ensuring fairness, emphasizing the importance of independent investigative bodies for incidents of research misconduct, and advocating for fairness as a priority in governance of research misconduct.

RESUMEN

Research misconduct, broadly defined as acts of fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism, violate the value system of science, cost significant wastage of public resources, and in more extreme cases endanger research participants or members of the society at large. Determination of culpability in research misconduct requires establishment of intent on the part of the respondent or perpetrator. However, "intent" is a state of mind, and its perception is subjective, unequivocal evidence for which would not be as readily established compared to the objective evidence available for the acts themselves. Here, we explore the concept of "intent" in research misconduct, how it is framed in criminological/legal terms, and narrated from a psychological perspective. Based on these, we propose a framework whereby lines of questioning and investigation, as defined by legislative terms and informed by the models and tools of psychology, could help in establishing a preponderance of evidence for culpable intent. Such a framework could be useful in research misconduct adjudications and in delivering sanctions.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Retraction is intended to be a mechanism to correct the published body of knowledge when necessary due to fraudulent, fatally flawed, or ethically unacceptable publications. However, the success of this mechanism requires that retracted publications be consistently identified as such and that retraction notices contain sufficient information to understand what is being retracted and why. Our study investigated how clearly and consistently retracted publications in public health are being presented to researchers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a cross-sectional study, using 441 retracted research publications in the field of public health. Records were retrieved for each of these publications from 11 resources, while retraction notices were retrieved from publisher websites and full-text aggregators. The identification of the retracted status of the publication was assessed using criteria from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the National Library of Medicine. The completeness of the associated retraction notices was assessed using criteria from Committee on Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch. RESULTS: Two thousand eight hundred forty-one records for retracted publications were retrieved, of which less than half indicated that the article had been retracted. Less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all resources through which they were available. Within single resources, if and how retracted publications were identified varied. Retraction notices were frequently incomplete, with no notices meeting all the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The observed inconsistencies and incomplete notices pose a threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and highlight the need to better align with existing best practices to ensure more effective and transparent dissemination of information on retractions.

RESUMEN

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of numerous scientific outputs, growing attention is paid to research misconduct. This study aimed to investigate knowledge, attitudes and practices about research misconduct among medical residents in southwest China. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in southwest China from November 2022 through March 2023. The links to the questionnaire were sent to the directors of the teaching management department in 17 tertiary hospitals. Answers were collected and analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the factors associated with research misconduct among residents. RESULTS: 6200 residents were enrolled in the study, and 88.5% of participants attended a course on research integrity, but 53.7% of participants admitted to having committed at least one form of research misconduct. Having a postgraduate or above, publishing papers as the first author or corresponding author, attending a course on research integrity, lower self-reported knowledge on research integrity and lower perceived consequences for research misconduct were positively correlated to research misconduct. Serving as a primary investigator for a research project was negatively associated with research misconduct. Most residents (66.3%) agreed that the reason for research misconduct is that researchers lack research ability. CONCLUSIONS: The high self-reported rate of research misconduct among residents in southwest China underscores a universal necessity for enhancing research integrity courses in residency programs. The ineffectiveness of current training in China suggests a possible global need for reevaluating and improving educational approaches to foster research integrity. Addressing these challenges is imperative not only for the credibility of medical research and patient care in China but also for maintaining the highest ethical standards in medical education worldwide. Policymakers, educators, and healthcare leaders on a global scale should collaborate to establish comprehensive strategies that ensure the responsible conduct of research, ultimately safeguarding the integrity of medical advancements and promoting trust in scientific endeavors across borders.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Investigating research misconduct allegations against top officials can create significant conflicts of interest (COIs) for universities that may require changes to existing oversight frameworks. One way of addressing some of these challenges is to develop policies and procedures that specifically address investigation of allegations of misconduct involving top university officials. Steps can also be taken now regardless of whether such a body is created. Federal and university research misconduct regulations and policies may need to be revised to provide institutions with clearer guidance on how to deal with misconduct allegations against top officials. For their part, institutions may benefit from proactively creating and transparently disclosing their own processes for independent investigation of research misconduct allegations against senior officials.

RESUMEN

A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927-2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to assess the profile of retracted health sciences articles authored by individuals affiliated with academic institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We systematically searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Medline/Ovid, Scielo, and LILACS). We included articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2022 that had at least one author with an institutional affiliation in LAC. Data were collected on the year of publication, study design, authors' countries of origin, number of authors, subject matter of the manuscript, scientific journals of publication, retraction characteristics, and reasons for retraction. We included 147 articles, the majority being observational studies (41.5%). The LAC countries with the highest number of retractions were Brazil (n = 69), Colombia (n = 16), and Mexico (n = 15). The areas of study with the highest number of retractions were infectology (n = 21) and basic sciences (n = 15). A retraction label was applied to 89.1% of the articles, 70.7% were retracted by journal editors, and 89.1% followed international retraction guidelines. The primary reasons for retraction included errors in procedures or data collection (n = 39), inconsistency in results or conclusions (n = 37), plagiarism (n = 21), and suspected scientific fraud (n = 19). In conclusion, most retractions of scientific publications in health sciences in LAC adhered to international guidelines and were linked to methodological issues in execution and scientific misconduct. Efforts should be directed toward ensuring the integrity of scientific research in the field of health.

RESUMEN

Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.

RESUMEN

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity with a focus on the primary forms of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also details the main factors for their occurrence, and the possible ways for mitigating their use among scholars.Methods: The method employed a detailed examination of the main ethical dilemmas, as delineated in literature, as well as the factors leading to these ethical breaches and the strategies to mitigate them. Further, the teaching experiences of the primary author are reflected in the development of the model.Results: The results of this article are represented in a model illustrating the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. Further, a significant aspect of our article is the identification of novel forms of research misconduct concerning the use of irrelevant or forced citations or references.Conclusion: In conclusion, the article highlights the substantial positive effects that adherence to research ethics and integrity have on the academic well-being of scholars.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We extracted, coded, and analyzed data from 343 Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries published in the Federal Register and other venues from May 1993 to July 2023 to test hypotheses concerning the relationship between the severity of ORI administrative actions and various demographic and institutional factors. We found that factors indicative of the severity of the respondent's misconduct or a pattern of misbehavior were associated with the severity of ORI administrative actions. Being required by ORI to retract or correct publications and aggravating factors, such as interfering with an investigation, were both positively associated with receiving a funding debarment and with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Admitting one's guilt and being found to have committed plagiarism (only) were negatively associated with receiving a funding debarment but were neither positively nor negatively associated with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Other factors, such as the respondent's race/ethnicity, gender, academic position, administrative position, or their institution's NIH funding level or extramural vs. intramural or foreign vs. US status, were neither positively nor negatively associated with the severity of administrative actions. Overall, our findings suggest that ORI has acted fairly when imposing administrative actions on respondents and has followed DHHS guidelines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Since its launch, ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence-powered language model tool, has generated significant attention in research writing. The use of ChatGPT in medical research can be a double-edged sword. ChatGPT can expedite the research writing process by assisting with hypothesis formulation, literature review, data analysis and manuscript writing. On the other hand, using ChatGPT raises concerns regarding the originality and authenticity of content, the precision and potential bias of the tool's output, and the potential legal issues associated with privacy, confidentiality and plagiarism. The article also calls for adherence to stringent citation guidelines and the development of regulations promoting the responsible application of AI. Despite the revolutionary capabilities of ChatGPT, the article highlights its inability to replicate human thought and the difficulties in maintaining the integrity and reliability of ChatGPT-enabled research, particularly in complex fields such as medicine and law. AI tools can be used as supplementary aids rather than primary sources of analysis in medical research writing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

To find research misconduct in research that has been supported by federal funds, an institution must determine that the misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. "Intentional" and "knowing" are straightforward standards. Yet "reckless" often mystifies institutions, which struggle to assess whether a respondent's conduct should be deemed "reckless," or merely negligent. This difficulty is most pronounced when allegations are lodged against the author under whose supervision the primary research was conducted - most often, the senior and/or corresponding author of a published paper who may not have been directly involved in performing the experiments or preparing the data under scrutiny. In these situations, investigation committees and the institutional "deciding official" must assess whether the supervising scientist is guilty of research misconduct - based on the theory that their supervision of the research and development of the publication containing falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized information was reckless - even if that person did not perform the experiment or assemble the research records in question. This paper seeks to provide a framework for evaluating the circumstances in which past supervisory conduct should be deemed "reckless" and thus a basis on which a finding of research misconduct may be made.

RESUMEN

Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to assess the nature and prevalence of misconduct in self and nonself-reported biomedical research. Materials and Methods: A detailed review of previously conducted studies was conducted through PubMed Central, PubMed, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms: "scientific misconduct," "Publications," "plagiarism," and "authorship," and keywords: scientific misconduct, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and duplicate publication. MeSH terms and keywords were searched in combinations using Boolean operators "AND" and "OR." Of 7771 articles that appeared in the search, 107 were selected for inspection. The articles were screened for their quality and inclusion criteria. Finally, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Data analysis was conducted using an Open-Source, Open Meta Analyst, statistical software using the package "metaphor." Results: Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification were prevalent in most articles reviewed. The prevalence of research misconduct for plagiarism was 4.2% for self-reported and 27.9% for nonself-reported studies. Data fabrication was 4.5% in self-reported and 21.7% in nonself-reported studies. Data falsification was 9.7% in self-reported and 33.4% in nonself-reported studies, with significant heterogeneity. Conclusion: This meta-analysis gives a pooled estimate of the misconduct in research done in biomedical fields such as medicine, dental, pharmacy, and others across the world. We found that there is an alarming rate of misconduct in recent nonself-reported studies, and they were higher than that in the self-reported studies.