Mandatory Reporting: An Exploration of Student Perceptions of University Response to Sexual Misconduct.

To respond to sexual misconduct many universities have implemented mandatory reporting (MR), which requires university employees to report disclosures of sexual misconduct to university officials. The current study examines student perceptions of three different approaches to MR (universal, selective, and student-directed). Results revealed that most students preferred a student-directed approach to MR over selective or universal approaches. Survivors of sexual misconduct indicated lower intent to report misconduct under the universal approach to MR compared to their nonvictimized peers. Additionally, under the universal approach to MR, LGBQ+ individuals endorsed lower intent to report misconduct compared to heterosexual individuals.

Writing the Roadmap for Medical Practice: Ethics of Medical Authorship.

The medical literature guides ethical clinical care by providing information on medical innovations, clinical care, the history of medical advances, explanations for past mistakes and inspiration for future discoveries. Ethical authorship practices are thus imperative to preserving the integrity of medical publications and fulfilling our obligations to ethical patient care. Unethical authorship practices such as plagiarism, guest authorship, and ghost authorship are increasing and pose serious threats to the medical literature. The rise of artificial intelligence in assisting scholarly work poses particular concerns. Authors may face severe and career-changing penalties for engaging in unethical authorship.

The correlation between medical students' clinical dishonesty, psychological distress, and moral intelligence.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical dishonesty is one of the components of academic dishonesty that deals with the unprofessional behavior of students in hospital and clinic environments (medical students, nursing students, etc.). Psychological distress and low moral intelligence among students can be known as predisposing factors in performing dishonest clinical behaviors. The present research addresses a gap in the scientific literature by investigating dishonest behavior among medical students. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined medical students' clinical dishonesty, psychological distress, and moral intelligence. Rafati et al.'s questionnaire was used to investigate clinical dishonesty, Kessler's Psychological Distress Questionnaire (K6) was used for psychological distress, and Lenik and Keil's (2005) questionnaire was used to determine moral intelligence. Cochran's formula was used to calculate the sample size and the simple random sample (SRS) method was used for sampling. Data were statistically analyzed in SPSS version 27 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, United States). a P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 317 medical students were included in this study, of which 176 (55.5%) were male and 141 (44.5%) were female. We found a direct and significant statistical correlation between clinical dishonesty and students' distress (Correlation Coefficient: 0.162, P-value < 0.001). In addition, there was a statistically significant inverse correlation between clinical dishonesty and moral intelligence (Correlation Coefficient: -0.241, P-value: 0.004). Moreover, there was a higher rate of clinical dishonesty among senior medical students (P-value < 0.001). Moreover, the most dishonest clinical behaviors are as follows: [1] Disclosure of patient information in public or with non-medical personnel (76%), Incorrect examination of vital signs and physical examinations (69.4%), Not reporting incidents or errors of others involving patients (41.6%). CONCLUSION: Finally, most students have experienced engaging in at least one clinically dishonest behavior. Such actions increase with the progress of the educational level so that it reaches its peak at the internship stage. Moral intelligence is a learnable concept, and mental distress also has its own treatments. Therefore, improving these two factors can reduce clinical dishonesty among medical students.

Negative performance feedback from algorithms or humans? effect of medical researchers' algorithm aversion on scientific misconduct.

Institutions are increasingly employing algorithms to provide performance feedback to individuals by tracking productivity, conducting performance appraisals, and developing improvement plans, compared to traditional human managers. However, this shift has provoked considerable debate over the effectiveness and fairness of algorithmic feedback. This study investigates the effects of negative performance feedback (NPF) on the attitudes, cognition and behavior of medical researchers, comparing NPF from algorithms versus humans. Two scenario-based experimental studies were conducted with a total sample of 660 medical researchers (algorithm group: N1 = 411; human group: N2 = 249). Study 1 analyzes the differences in scientific misconduct, moral disengagement, and algorithmic attitudes between the two sources of NPF. The findings reveal that NPF from algorithms shows higher levels of moral disengagement, scientific misconduct, and negative attitudes towards algorithms compared to NPF from humans. Study 2, grounded in trait activation theory, investigates how NPF from algorithms triggers individual's egoism and algorithm aversion, potentially leading to moral disengagement and scientific misconduct. Results indicate that algorithm aversion triggers individuals' egoism, and their interaction enhances moral disengagement, which in turn leads to increased scientific misconduct among researchers. This relationship is also moderated by algorithmic transparency. The study concludes that while algorithms can streamline performance evaluations, they pose significant risks to scientific misconduct of researchers if not properly designed. These findings extend our understanding of NPF by highlighting the emotional and cognitive challenges algorithms face in decision-making processes, while also underscoring the importance of balancing technological efficiency with moral considerations to promote a healthy research environment. Moreover, managerial implications include integrating human oversight in algorithmic NPF processes and enhancing transparency and fairness to mitigate negative impacts on medical researchers' attitudes and behaviors.

Sexual Misconduct by Board Certified Family Physicians.

PURPOSE: Sexual misconduct by physicians is a consequential violation of patient trust. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and patterns of sexual misconduct by physicians certified by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). METHODS: We described a cohort of current or formerly ABFM certified physicians ("Diplomates") disciplined for sexual misconduct in 2016 to 2022. RESULTS: Ninety-four physicians, representing only 0.1% of ABFM Diplomates, were identified as having received disciplinary action(s) for reported sexual misconduct. These constituted 8.9% of the 1122 cases that resulted in a physician losing board certification or eligibility for any cause in 2016 to 2022. Ninety-three of the 94 physicians identified as male, with an average age of 56 (range 22 to 88 years). Eighty-nine percent of victims were female, and 90% were patients of the physician. Unwanted sexual behavior/assault occurred in more than half of the cases, whereas one third described an ongoing sexual relationship between patient and physician. Nearly 1 in 5 cases also included controlled substance prescribing. Seven cases involved minors. Noncontact ("grooming") behaviors were described in 34 cases, 28 of which included subsequent physical sexual behavior. A clinical setting was the site of misconduct in 84% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Reports of sexual misconduct among board-certified family physicians are infrequent. However, any sexual misconduct by physicians is harmful to patients and the profession. The specialty should work to enhance education and change professional culture to mitigate this important problem.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: stage 1 of the INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform health-care decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesize all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of health care-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. METHODS: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorized these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. RESULTS: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Systematic reviews draw upon evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to find out whether treatments are safe and effective. The conclusions from systematic reviews are often very influential, and inform both health-care policy and individual treatment decisions. However, it is now clear that the results of many published RCTs are not genuine. In some cases, the entire study may have been fabricated. It is not usual for the veracity of RCTs to be questioned during the process of compiling a systematic review. As a consequence, these "problematic studies" go unnoticed, and are allowed to contribute to the conclusions of influential systematic reviews, thereby influencing patient care. This prompts the question of how these problematic studies could be identified. In this study, we created an extensive list of checks that could be performed to try to identify these studies. We started by assembling a list of checks identified in previous research, and conducting a survey of experts to ask whether they were aware of any additional methods, and to give feedback on the list. As a result, a list of 116 potential "trustworthiness checks" was created. In subsequent research, we will evaluate these checks to see which should be included in a tool, INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews, which can be used to detect problematic studies.

Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction.

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.

[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.

The PubPeer conundrum: Administrative challenges in research misconduct proceedings.

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.

Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.

The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While the responsible use of AI brings many innovations and benefits to science and humanity, its unethical use poses a serious threat to scientific integrity and literature. Even in the absence of malicious use, the Chatbot output itself, as a software application based on AI, carries the risk of containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations and plagiarism. Therefore, the use of complex AI algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency and accountability, requiring the development of new ethical rules to protect scientific integrity. Unfortunately, the development and writing of ethical codes cannot keep up with the pace of development and implementation of technology. The main purpose of this narrative review is to inform readers, authors, reviewers and editors about new approaches to publication ethics in the era of AI. It specifically focuses on tips on how to disclose the use of AI in your manuscript, how to avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, and current standards for retraction.

Prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals: A text similarity analysis.

BACKGROUND: The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade. METHODS: A quasi-random sample of 936 papers published in 58 hijacked journals that provided free access to their archive as of June 2021 was selected for the analysis. The study utilizes Urkund (Ouriginal) software and manual verification to investigate plagiarism and finds a significant prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals. RESULTS: Out of the analyzed sample papers, 618 (66%) were found to contain instances of plagiarism, and 28% of papers from the sample (n = 259) displayed text similarities of 25% or more. The analysis reveals that a majority of authors originate from developing and ex-Soviet countries, with limited affiliation ties to developed countries and scarce international cooperation in papers submitted to hijacked journals. The absence of rigorous publication requirements, peer review processes, and plagiarism checks in hijacked journals creates an environment where authors can publish texts with a significant amount of plagiarism. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a tendency for fraudulent journals to attract authors who do not uphold scientific integrity principles. The legitimization of papers from hijacked journals in bibliographic databases, along with their citation, poses significant challenges to scientific integrity.

The Prevalence of Sexual Misconduct in US Medical Education: Examining the Intersecting Vulnerabilities of Gender and Sexual Orientation.

This study explores the prevalence, characteristics, and correlates of sexual harassment and nonconsensual sexual contact among medical students in the United States (US). The study aims to understand the association between gender, sexual orientation, and these incidents within the context of undergraduate medical education in the US. Employing a cross-sectional approach, this study collected primary data from 23,124 medical students across various US allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. After the data were cleaned, 245 (1% of the targeted population) respondents were included in the final analysis. The focus was on the prevalence and characteristics of sexual harassment and nonconsensual sexual contact and the association of gender and sexual orientation with these experiences. The findings revealed that 12.2% (n = 30) of the respondents experienced nonconsensual sexual contact, with other medical students being the most common perpetrators. A significant association was found between gender, sexual orientation, and the occurrence of unwanted sexual contact, indicating a disproportionate impact on non-heterosexual individuals and females. The study underscores the prevalence of sexual harassment and nonconsensual sexual contact within the US undergraduate medical education, highlighting disparities based on gender and sexual orientation. These results call for the implementation of policies and programs to address sexual misconduct in medical schools. The study elucidates the need for an understanding of the impact of sexual misconduct on students attending both allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) medical programs.

Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to assess the knowledge and ongoing practices of plagiarism among the journal editors of Nepal. METHODS: This web-based questionnaire analytical cross-sectional was conducted among journal editors working across various journals in Nepal. All journal editors from NepJOL-indexed journals in Nepal who provided e-consent were included in the study using a convenience sampling technique. A final set of questionnaires was prepared using Google Forms, including six knowledge questions, three practice questions (with subsets) for authors, and four (with subsets) for editors. These were distributed to journal editors in Nepal via email, Facebook Messenger, Viber, and WhatsApp. Reminders were sent weekly, up to three times. Data analysis was done in R software. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the demographic variables, correct responses regarding knowledge, and practices related to plagiarism. Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare mean knowledge with demographic variables. For all tests, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 147 participants completed the survey.The mean age of the participants was found to be 43.61 ± 8.91 years. Nearly all participants were aware of plagiarism, and most had heard of both Turnitin and iThenticate. Slightly more than three-fourths correctly identified that citation and referencing can avoid plagiarism. The overall mean knowledge score was 5.32 ± 0.99, with no significant differences across demographic variables. As authors, 4% admitted to copying sections of others' work without acknowledgment and reusing their own published work without proper citations. Just over one-fifth did not use plagiarism detection software when writing research articles. Fewer than half reported that their journals used authentic plagiarism detection software. Four-fifths of them suspected plagiarism in the manuscripts assigned through their journal. Three out of every five participants reported the plagiarism used in the manuscript to the respective authors. Nearly all participants believe every journal must have plagiarism-detection software. CONCLUSIONS: Although journal editors' knowledge and practices regarding plagiarism appear to be high, they are still not satisfactory. It is strongly recommended to use authentic plagiarism detection software by the journals and editors should be adequately trained and update their knowledge about it.

The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.

Addressing researcher fraud: retrospective, real-time, and preventive strategies-including legal points and data management that prevents fraud.

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.

[Disciplinary responsibility of medical workers in medical organizations].

Bringing to disciplinary responsibility of medical workers in the context of reforming the system of personnel training for the medical field, the introduction of digital technologies into the daily activities of a doctor, acquires pronounced specific features. The purpose of the study is to review the current labor legislation regulating labor discipline and identify the grounds for bringing medical workers to disciplinary responsibility in medical organizations.

On "intent" in research misconduct.

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.

The punishment intensity for research misconduct and its related factors: An exploratory study on hospitals in Mainland China.

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.

Scientific misconduct in infectious diseases-European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases survey.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and perception of scientific misconduct in infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM), as reported by the ID/CM community. METHODS: An anonymous online European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases survey circulated among society members from October 2023 to June 2024; the questionnaire included data on participants' views on their own and their colleagues' scientific misconduct in the last 5 years. RESULTS: The survey received 220 responses. Responders were 73% ID physicians, 52% men, 56% aged 35-54 years, and represented 48 countries, mainly European (126 participants). The vast majority of participants (78%) reported that they did not personally commit scientific misconduct, whereas 54% reported witnessing misconduct by colleagues in their field. The most commonly committed misconduct by both responders and their colleagues was misconduct of authorship rules, 14% and 41%, respectively. Overall, 18% reported witnessing misleading reporting and 14% reported witnessing nonaccurate reporting of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the majority (>60%) of responders reported high confidence in the integrity of published work in the field of ID/CM. Approximately one-third of responders were not aware of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases ethics advisory committee as an authority to which members can report misconduct. DISCUSSION: Scientific misconduct, mostly related to violation of authorship rules, seems to be common in ID/CM. Efforts to improve scientific integrity should be made to keep trust in the scientific process.