U.S. agency drops controversial changes to misconduct rules.

In first regulatory overhaul in 20 years, Office of Research Integrity takes modest steps toward greater transparency.

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research.

Questionable research practices (QRP) are believed to be widespread, but empirical assessments are generally restricted to a few types of practices. Furthermore, conceptual confusion is rife with use and prevalence of QRPs often being confused as the same quantity. We present the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. We survey perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among 3,402 researchers in Denmark and 1,307 in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Results reveal remarkably similar response patterns among Danish and international respondents (τ = 0.85). Self-reported use indicates whether respondents have used a QRP in recent publications. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. Median use is three out of nine QRP items. Self-reported prevalence reflects the frequency of use. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to self-reported use. Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs. Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence. Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

[Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?] / Las revistas depredadoras: ¿qué son y cómo evitarlas?

Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.

Actualmente han proliferado una gran cantidad de revistas depredadoras, cuyo fin es obtener ganancias fraudulentas mediante la promesa de la publicación rápida de trabajos científicos, sin cumplir con los servicios de una revisión de calidad. Estas editoriales han logrado copiar los modelos de las revistas con acceso abierto, por lo que cada vez son más difíciles de identificar, aunado a que muchas de ellas se han abierto espacios en los índices más importantes de las revistas científicas, como Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, entre otros. Estas editoriales defraudan no solo a los autores de las investigaciones que intentan publicar sino también a los lectores y al público en general con publicaciones que no han sido debidamente revisadas y evaluadas por un sistema de pares o expertos académicos. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es dar a conocer algunas de las prácticas más comunes de las revistas depredadoras para que toda persona interesada en el proceso editorial, ya sea como autor, editor o lector, tenga los elementos para identificar estas revistas fraudulentas y esta mala práctica en el proceso editorial.

Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed. METHODS: Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures. RESULTS: First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures. CONCLUSION: Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry.

"Research paper mills": A factory outlet for dubious research.

The primary objective of any research, regardless of its domain such as health, technology, psychology, or any other subject, is to enhance the overall well-being of individuals. Rigorous processes are involved in conducting research ethically and in communicating its outcomes to society. However, as publishing research has become a mandatory requirement for career advancement and appointments, academics are resorting to several unethical practices to get substandard work published quickly. Consequently, predatory publishing markets have emerged, which publish data that is falsified and fabricated, along with plagiarised textual matter. The emergence of "paper mills" is a further step in the corruption of research, where a group of persons or automated systems generate papers for publication. Anyone desirous of publishing a paper can purchase one, akin to any desired fast-moving consumer product, with the added guarantee of publication in indexed journals. Therefore, paper mills and their unethical modus operandi are discussed in this paper in detail, with relevant examples. The article unfolds the consequences of publishing such fraudulent research papers and concludes with the challenges in combating paper mills.

Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

Ethical clearance paper as a bottleneck.

The significance of the ethical review process in human-based research undertakings cannot be overemphasized as it is necessary to uphold ethical standards and protect participants. However, the review process per se can act as a bottleneck, potentially hindering research progress and leading to academic dishonesty. The present work explores the benefits and challenges of ethical review, emphasizing issues like intellectual theft, forced authorship, and the stifling of independent researchers. Proposed solutions include leveraging previously approved designs, empowering experienced professors for clearance, establishing panels of researchers, creating voluntary ethical approval offices, utilizing private consultancy offices, and establishing a transnational ethical clearance authority. In conclusion, this work stresses the importance of finding mechanisms to streamline the ethical review process while maintaining ethical standards to foster integrity in research and combat academic dishonesty.

Research integrity in the era of artificial intelligence: Challenges and responses.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in scientific research has significantly enhanced efficiency and accuracy but also introduced new forms of academic misconduct, such as data fabrication and text plagiarism using AI algorithms. These practices jeopardize research integrity and can mislead scientific directions. This study addresses these challenges, underscoring the need for the academic community to strengthen ethical norms, enhance researcher qualifications, and establish rigorous review mechanisms. To ensure responsible and transparent research processes, we recommend the following specific key actions: Development and enforcement of comprehensive AI research integrity guidelines that include clear protocols for AI use in data analysis and publication, ensuring transparency and accountability in AI-assisted research. Implementation of mandatory AI ethics and integrity training for researchers, aimed at fostering an in-depth understanding of potential AI misuses and promoting ethical research practices. Establishment of international collaboration frameworks to facilitate the exchange of best practices and development of unified ethical standards for AI in research. Protecting research integrity is paramount for maintaining public trust in science, making these recommendations urgent for the scientific community consideration and action.

Analysis of the Types of Retracted COVID-19 Articles Published in PubMed-Listed Journals.

OBJECTIVES: Periodically, medical publications are retracted. The reasons vary from minor situations, such as author attributions, which do not undermine the validity of the data or the analysis in the article, to serious reasons, such as fraud. Understanding the reasons for retraction can provide important information for clinicians, educators, researchers, journals, and editorial boards. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched using the term "COVID-19" (coronavirus disease 2019) and the term limitation "retracted publication." The characteristics of the journals with retracted articles, the types of article, and the reasons for retraction were analyzed. RESULTS: This search recovered 196 articles that had been retracted. These retractions were published in 179 different journals; 14 journals had >1 retracted article. The mean impact factor of these journals was 8.4, with a range of 0.32-168.9. The most frequent reasons for retractions were duplicate publication, concerns about data validity and analysis, concerns about peer review, author request, and the lack of permission or ethical violation. There were significant differences between the types of article and the reasons for retraction but no consistent pattern. A more detailed analysis of two particular retractions demonstrates the complexity and the effort required to make decisions about article retractions. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction of published articles presents a significant challenge to journals, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. This process has the potential to provide important benefits; it also has the potential to undermine confidence in both research and the editorial process.

Plagiarism and Authorship Credit.

Literature being an expression of an author, its commodification historically has assigned a value to it primarily in terms of authorship credit. Arguably reproducing published content without attributing the requisite source, termed as plagiarism is ethically discrediting to this premise. However, simply weighing its proportion based on digitally assigned semantic similarity may not be completely justifiable in the present-day digital atmosphere. It should be noted that while technology can facilitate plagiarism detection, digitization by way of providing greater access to published content is also the facilitator of plagiarism. While the scientific community is often severe in its approach toward the act of plagiarism, there is still a lack of clarity around the code of conduct of the same as there are several grey areas related to such a misconduct on which the law remains silent. By revisiting the historical evolution of the credit of authorship and the copyright law this piece presents an analytical vista pertaining to plagiarism in a different light. By identifying the gaps in the present-day handling of these age-old concepts, one may find that there is an unmet need to revisit the legal aspects of handling cases of plagiarism taking into consideration the digital environment.

Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review.

Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.