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.

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.

Current trends in retraction of plastic surgery and reconstruction research.

BACKGROUND: Various studies regarding retractions of publications have determined the rate of retraction has increased in recent years. Although this trend may apply to any field, there is a paucity of literature exploring the publication of erroneous studies within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The present study aims to identify trends in frequency and reasons for retraction of plastic and reconstructive surgery studies, with analysis of subspecialty and journals. METHODS: A database search was conducted for retracted papers within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The initial search yielded 2347 results, which were analyzed by two independent reviewers. 77 studies were jointly identified for data collection. RESULTS: The most common reasons for retractions were duplication (n = 20, 25.9 %), request of author (n = 15, 19.5 %), plagiarism (n = 9, 11.6 %), error (n = 9, 11.6 %), fraud (n = 2, 2.6 %), and conflict of interest (n = 1, 1.3 %). 15 were basic science studies (19.4 %), 58 were clinical science studies (75.3 %), and 4 were not categorized (5.2 %). Subspecialties of retracted papers were maxillofacial (n = 29, 37.7 %), reconstructive (n = 17, 22.0 %), wound healing (n = 8, 10.4 %), burn (n = 6, 7.8 %), esthetics (n = 5, 6.5 %), breast (n = 3, 3.9 %), and trauma (n = 1, 1.3 %). Mean impact factor was 2.9 and average time from publication to retraction was 32 months. CONCLUSION: Analysis of retracted plastic surgery studies revealed a recent rise in frequency of retractions, spanning a wide spectrum of journals and subspecialties.

Analysis of the retraction papers in oncology field from Chinese scholars from 2013 to 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction. METHODS: Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%). CONCLUSION: In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.

An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.

INTRODUCTION: The output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted. DESIGN: This was an exploratory study. METHODS: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices. RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one-third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty-eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright. CONCLUSION: Nurses rely on nursing-specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.

Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.

Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the "publish or perish" incentive system promotes research integrity.