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.

Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.

Problem: Investigations regarding perceptions of the institutional research integrity climate in the Arab Middle East remain underexplored. Subjects: We surveyed faculty from three Egyptian universities. Method: We utilized the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) tool, which incorporates seven subscales that measure different aspects of the research integrity climate. Responses were obtained from a 5-point Likert scale. Findings: Of the 228 participants, the subscales 'Regulatory Quality' and '[Lack of] Integrity Inhibitors' received the highest mean scores, whereas the lowest scores pertained to 'Departmental Expectations,' 'Integrity Socialization,' and 'Responsible Conduct of Research´ indicating areas in need of improvement. Conclusions: Academic leaders should set fairer expectations for research and funding for their researchers, ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices, and promote effective RCR training and availability of RCR policies. We identify specific targeted interventions to enhance the research integrity climate within these institutions.

Risk of bias and problematic trials: characterising the research integrity of trials submitted to Anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence for systematic biases and failures of research integrity in the anaesthesia literature. However, the features of problematic trials and effect of editorial selection on these issues have not been well quantified. METHODS: We analysed 209 randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia between 8 March 2019 and 31 March 2020. We evaluated the submitted manuscript, registry data and the results of investigations into the integrity of the trial undertaken at the time of submission. Trials were labelled 'concerning' if failures of research integrity were found, and 'problematic' if identified issues would have warranted retraction if they had been found after publication. We investigated how 'problematic' trials were detected, the distribution of p values and the risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking. We also investigated whether there were any factors that differed in problematic trials. RESULTS: We found that false data was the most common reason for a trial to be labelled as 'concerning', which occurred in 51/62 (82%) cases. We also found that while 195/209 (93%) trials were preregistered, we found adequate registration for only 166/209 (79%) primary outcomes, 100/209 (48%) secondary outcomes and 11/209 (5%) analysis plans. We also found evidence for a step decrease in the frequency of p values > 0.05 compared with p values < 0.05. 'Problematic' trials were all single-centre and appeared to have fewer authors (incident risk ratio (95%CI) 0.8 (0.7-0.9)), but could not otherwise be distinguished reliably from other trials. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of 'problematic' trials is frequently dependent on individual patient data, which is often unavailable after publication. Additionally, there is evidence of a risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking in submitted trials. Implementation of alternative research and editorial practices could reduce the risk of bias and make identification of problematic trials easier.

Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.

Development of the individual participant data integrity tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data.

Increasing integrity concerns in medical research have prompted the development of tools to detect untrustworthy studies. Existing tools primarily assess published aggregate data (AD), though scrutiny of individual participant data (IPD) is often required to detect trustworthiness issues. Thus, we developed the IPD Integrity Tool for detecting integrity issues in randomised trials with IPD available. This manuscript describes the development of this tool. We conducted a literature review to collate and map existing integrity items. These were discussed with an expert advisory group; agreed items were included in a standardised tool and automated where possible. We piloted this tool in two IPD meta-analyses (including 116 trials) and conducted preliminary validation checks on 13 datasets with and without known integrity issues. We identified 120 integrity items: 54 could be conducted using AD, 48 required IPD, and 18 were possible with AD, but more comprehensive with IPD. An initial reduced tool was developed through consensus involving 13 advisors, featuring 11 AD items across four domains, and 12 IPD items across eight domains. The tool was iteratively refined throughout piloting and validation. All studies with known integrity issues were accurately identified during validation. The final tool includes seven AD domains with 13 items and eight IPD domains with 18 items. The quality of evidence informing healthcare relies on trustworthy data. We describe the development of a tool to enable researchers, editors, and others to detect integrity issues using IPD. Detailed instructions for its application are published as a complementary manuscript in this issue.

Integrity at stake: confronting "publish or perish" in the developing world and emerging economies.

The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the "publish or perish" culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of "paper mills," and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

Training, networking, and support infrastructure for ombudspersons for good research practice: A survey of the status quo in the Berlin research area.

Recent developments in the German academic landscape have seen a shifting approach to promoting research integrity. In 2019, the German Research Foundation (DFG) incentivized all research and higher education institutions to appoint ombudspersons who advise members of their institution in matters of good research practice or suspected research misconduct. These ombudspersons for good research practice, usually professors who act in this function on a voluntary basis, need institutional support to be prepared for and fulfill their diverse duties. The Ombuds-Modelle@BUA (2020) and OBUA - Ombudswesen@BUA (2021-2023) projects worked to advance the professionalization of ombudspersons in the Berlin research area by first investigating the current situation and then offering a meta-level of support in training, networking, and knowledge exchange. Furthermore, the OBUA project engaged in meta-research, investigating the status quo of local ombuds systems and demands for support. The project findings, discussed in this contribution, show that the professionalization of local ombuds systems has been evolving in past years, especially in the areas of training and networking. Infrastructural support measures, however, remain largely underdeveloped.

Promoting research integrity in funding: Co-creating guidelines for research funding organizations.

Research Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.

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.

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.

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.

'Special issue-ization' as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the "big five" and the risks for research integrity.

The exponential growth of MDPI and Frontiers over the last decade has been powered by their extensive use of special issues. The "special issue-ization" of journal publishing has been particularly associated with new publishers and seen as potentially "questionable." Through an extended case-study analysis of three journals owned by one of the "big five" commercial publishers, this paper explores the risks that this growing use of special issues presents to research integrity. All three case-study journals show sudden and marked changes in their publication patterns. An analysis of special issue editorials and retraction notes was used to determine the specifics of special issues and reasons for retractions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Findings suggest that these commercial publishers are also promoting special issues and that article retractions are often connected to guest editor manipulation. This underlies the threat that "special issue-ization" presents to research integrity. It highlights the risks posed by the guest editor model, and the importance of extending this analysis to long-existing commercial publishers. The paper emphasizes the need for an in-depth examination of the underlying structures and political economy of science, and a discussion of the rise of gaming and manipulation within higher education systems.

[International Multi-stakeholder Consensus Statement on Clinical Trial Integrity]. / Documento de consenso internacional sobre la integridad de los ensayos clínicos.

BACKGROUND: Science integrity initiatives require specific recommendations for randomised clinical trials (RCT). OBJECTIVE: To prepare a set of statements for RCT integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus. METHODS: The consensus was developed via multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percent of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting. RESULTS: There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from 5 continents including trialists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representative, industry representative, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with 8 additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n=6), design and approval (n=11), conduct and monitoring (n=19), reporting of protocols and findings (n=20), post-publication concerns (n=12), and future research and development (n=13). CONCLUSION: Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.

An Assessment of Clinical Research Self-Efficacy among Researchers at the Largest Healthcare Institute in Qatar: Recommendations and Future Actions.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical research professionals must be equipped with adequate training in sound scientific methods and appropriate ethics. In this study, we aimed to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of researchers at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC). We also evaluated the effects of training courses on researchers' self-efficacy. METHODS: Utilizing a cross-sectional design, we used the shortened Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI-12) through an online survey to assess the current clinical research self-efficacy of 600 researchers at HMC, Doha, Qatar. After conducting descriptive analyses, unpaired t test and ANOVA were used to determine significant mean percentages between variables. Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated to measure the association among the interval variables. All tests were 2-sided, and significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: For all questions, except those related to "funding," most participants scored on the upper half of the scale (>5), reflecting higher self-efficacy for the topics covered in CRAI. Gender differences were significant across all factors, with males reporting higher levels of self-assessed efficacy and in clinical research. Other factors such as higher education degrees and previous (external) clinical research training were also associated with higher self-reported clinical research efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that researchers at HMC possess high clinical research self-efficacy overall, but lower self-efficacy in securing funding. Gender and education level positively influence self-efficacy across CRAI factors. Notably, clinical research training boosts self-efficacy, especially when obtained outside HMC. In conclusion, healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to engage in effective clinical research training courses, both within and outside of their healthcare institutions, to improve their clinical research efficacy and enhance clinical practice.

Navigating the challenges of imposter participants in online qualitative research: lessons learned from a paediatric health services study.

BACKGROUND: The growth in online qualitative research and data collection provides several advantages for health service researchers and participants, including convenience and extended geographic reach. However, these online processes can also present unexpected challenges, including instances of participant fraud or scam behaviour. This study describes an incident of participant fraud identified during online focus group discussions and interviews for a PhD health services research project on paediatric neurodevelopmental care. METHODS: We aimed to recruit carers of Australian children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Potential participants were recruited via a publicly available social media advert on Facebook offering $50 AUD compensation. Those who expressed interest via email (n = 254) were sent a pre-interview Qualtrics survey to complete. We identified imposters at an early stage via inconsistencies in their self-reported geographical location and that captured by the survey as well as recognition of suspicious actions before, during and after focus group discussions and interviews. RESULTS: Interest in participation was unexpectedly high. We determined that all potential participants were likely imposters, posing as multiple individuals and using different IP addresses across Nigeria, Australia, and the United States. In doing so, we were able to characterise several "red flags" for identifying imposter participants, particularly those posing as multiple individuals. These comprise a combination of factors including large volumes and strange timings of email responses, unlikely demographic characteristics, short or vague interviews, a preference for nonvisual participation, fixation on monetary compensation, and inconsistencies in reported geographical location. Additionally, we propose several strategies to combat this issue such as providing proof of location or eligibility during recruitment and data collection, examining email and consent form patterns, and comparing demographic data with regional statistics. CONCLUSIONS: The emergent risk of imposter participants is an important consideration for those seeking to conduct health services research using qualitative approaches in online environments. Methodological design choices intended to improve equity and access for the target population may have an unintended consequence of improving access for fraudulent actors unless appropriate risk mitigation strategies are also employed. Lessons learned from this experience are likely to be valuable for novice health service researchers involved in online focus group discussions and interviews.

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture.

Background: The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?' Aims: To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results: 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions: There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Data Availability Statements and Data Sharing in Urology: A False Promise?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is considered standard for authors of scientific papers to provide access to their raw data. The purpose of this study was to investigate data availability statements (DAS) and the actual availability of data in urology. METHODS: The DAS policies of the top ten urology journals were retrieved. Then 190 selected papers were classified according to their DAS status. Finally, we contacted the corresponding authors of papers that stated that data were available on request to enquire about this possibility. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: All journals either required or highly recommended a DAS. Among the selected articles, 52% (99/190) included a DAS stating data availability, most often on reasonable request to the corresponding author. A formal DAS was lacking in 29.5% (56/190) of the articles, with an additional 18.3% (35/190) citing various reasons for data unavailability. On contact, 23.4% (15/64) of corresponding authors indicated a willingness to share their data. Overall, data were unavailable in 73.7% (140/190) of cases. There was no difference between papers dealing with malignant and benign diseases. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is a gap between the intention to share data and actual practice in major urological journals. As data sharing plays a critical role in safeguarding the reliability of published results and in the potential for reanalysis and merging of datasets, there is a clear need for improvement. Easier access to data repositories and stronger enforcement of existing journal policies are essential. PATIENT SUMMARY: To ensure the reliability of data and allow further analyses, major urology journals require authors to make their data available to other researchers when possible. However, in practice we found that data were only accessible for about a quarter of published scientific papers.

Concerns about data integrity across 263 papers by one author.

OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive investigation of published work by authors suspected of academic misconduct can reveal further concerns. We aimed to test for data integrity concerns in papers published by an author with eight retracted articles. STUDY DESIGN: We investigated the integrity of all papers reporting on prospective clinical studies by this author. We assessed the feasibility of study methods, baseline characteristics, and outcomes. We plotted the author's clinical research activity over time. We conducted pairwise comparisons of text, tables, and figures to identify duplicate publications, and checked for consistency between conference abstracts, interim analyses, trial registrations, and final papers. Where indicated, we recalculated p-values from the reported summary statistics. RESULTS: We identified 263 papers claiming to have enrolled 74,667 participants between January 2009 and July 2022, 190 (72%) of which reported on studies that recruited from the Assiut Women's Health Hospital in Assiut, Egypt. The number of active studies per month was greatest between 2016 and 2019, with 88 ongoing studies in May 2017. We found evidence of data integrity concerns in 130 (49%) papers, 43 (33%) of which contained concerns sufficient to suggest that they could not be based on data reliably collected from human participants. CONCLUSION: Our investigation finds evidence of widespread integrity concerns in the collected work of one author. We recommend that the involved journals collaborate in a formal investigation.

Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network.

BACKGROUND: Equal, diverse, and inclusive teams lead to higher productivity, creativity, and greater problem-solving ability resulting in more impactful research. However, there is a gap between equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) research and practices to create an inclusive research culture. Research networks are vital to the research ecosystem, creating valuable opportunities for researchers to develop their partnerships with both academics and industrialists, progress their careers, and enable new areas of scientific discovery. A feature of a network is the provision of funding to support feasibility studies - an opportunity to develop new concepts or ideas, as well as to 'fail fast' in a supportive environment. The work of networks can address inequalities through equitable allocation of funding and proactive consideration of inclusion in all of their activities. METHODS: This study proposes a strategy to embed EDI within research network activities and funding review processes. This paper evaluates 21 planned mitigations introduced to address known inequalities within research events and how funding is awarded. EDI data were collected from researchers engaging in a digital manufacturing network activities and funding calls to measure the impact of the proposed method. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis indicates that the network's approach was successful in creating a more ethnically diverse network, engaging with early career researchers, and supporting researchers with care responsibilities. However, more work is required to create a gender balance across the network activities and ensure the representation of academics who declare a disability. Preliminary findings suggest the network's anonymous funding review process has helped address inequalities in funding award rates for women and those with care responsibilities, more data are required to validate these observations and understand the impact of different interventions individually and in combination. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this study offers compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of a research network's approach in advancing EDI within research and funding. The network hopes that these findings will inform broader efforts to promote EDI in research and funding and that researchers, funders, and other stakeholders will be encouraged to adopt evidence-based strategies for advancing this important goal.

Screening p-hackers: Dissemination noise as bait.

We show that adding noise before publishing data effectively screens [Formula: see text]-hacked findings: spurious explanations produced by fitting many statistical models (data mining). Noise creates "baits" that affect two types of researchers differently. Uninformed [Formula: see text]-hackers, who are fully ignorant of the true mechanism and engage in data mining, often fall for baits. Informed researchers, who start with an ex ante hypothesis, are minimally affected. We show that as the number of observations grows large, dissemination noise asymptotically achieves optimal screening. In a tractable special case where the informed researchers' theory can identify the true causal mechanism with very few data, we characterize the optimal level of dissemination noise and highlight the relevant trade-offs. Dissemination noise is a tool that statistical agencies currently use to protect privacy. We argue this existing practice can be repurposed to screen [Formula: see text]-hackers and thus improve research credibility.