Trends in science: successes and responsible research conduct.

Science, particularly in life sciences and biotechnologies, is continuing to make remarkable progress in the past decade. This has been possible due to the governments and people recognizing that scientific discoveries bring development and prosperity to the nation. The new trend in research is to collaborate across disciplines with large teams of participants across the globe. This has brought success but has led to varying standards in ethics and responsible conduct which require harmonization. Recent discoveries point to a need for new approaches to ethics. The rise in cases of misconduct and retraction of research papers from high-profile individuals has been a cause for concern. It is encouraging that many countries that have detected misconduct in research have instituted strong steps to correct the situation. This brief review discusses the recent developments of interest to me, the issues of global research, ethics and responsible conduct.

[Is COVID-19 a hype?] / Is covid-19 een hype?

The answer to the question whether COVID-19 is a hype or not depends on how we define a hype. The article loosely builds on philosophical discussions about hypes in knowledge work and information sciences. The central idea is to make clear that hypes always imply a certain overload of information and that the paradoxical outcome of this that it is not just information that is piling up but also disinformation. It is argued that it is in this sense (and only in this sense) that COVID-19 is a hype. How we respond to this hype depends very strongly on subjective sensitivities towards both information and desinformation.

Awareness of predatory publishing for Peruvian university professors and lecturers doing research.

Predatory open access journals and predatory conferences' main purpose is to make profit rather than promoting good science. In Peru, the University Law 30220 asks that professors and lecturers undertake research duties at universities. Hence, nowadays part of this academic staff is required to write scientific articles. However, not all of them are experienced on how to write a scholarly paper. Thus, in the rush to comply with the publication requirements that their individual institutions demand from them, a great number of these professors and lecturers are likely to fall prey of predatory publishing, which already is happening in other developing nations. This publishing method is not only unethical because it produces low-quality articles but also is an egregious mismanagement of the resources that universities allocate to fund research. Moreover, the time and effort that the academic staff put to the production of low-quality papers also completely go to waste. Professors and lecturers who follow these bad practices should be penalized; this also avoids the emergence of fraudulent research authorities. Thus, vice-rectorates for research in Peruvian universities should take corrective or preventive measures to promote the production of high-quality papers by part of their academic staff.

Relationship among factors affecting research misconduct in medical sciences in Iran.

This study aims to determine the relationship among factors affecting research misconduct within the research system of medical sciences in Iran. Using phenomenography, the perceptions of individuals involved in the activities of macro, meso, and micro levels of the research system were investigated and 13 affecting factors were identified. The DEMATEL method revealed complicated and intertwined relationships among these factors based on the experts' judgment. Most of the macro and meso factors were in the cause group and most of the micro factors were in the effect group. The results showed that critical factors such as "Monitoring and dealing with research misconduct," "Transparency in research," "Management of journals" and "Ethical considerations in the publication of research results" escalate research misconduct. The study indicated that track the relationship among factors in the research system can provide the opportunity to explain research misconduct on a transitional path from macro to micro level.

Korean medical students' attitudes toward academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicenter study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated medical students' attitudes toward academic misconduct that occurs in the learning environment during the pre-clinical and clinical periods. METHODS: Third-year medical students from seven medical schools were invited to participate in this study. A total of 337 of the 557 (60.5%) students completed an inventory assessing their attitudes toward academic misconduct. The inventory covered seven factors: scientific misconduct (eight items), irresponsibility in class (six items), disrespectful behavior in patient care (five items), dishonesty in clerkship tasks (four items), free riding on group assignments (four items), irresponsibility during clerkship (two items), and cheating on examinations (one item). RESULTS: Medical students showed a strict attitude toward academic misconduct such as cheating on examinations and disrespectful behavior in patient care, but they showed a less rigorous attitude toward dishonesty in clerkship tasks and irresponsibility in class. There was no difference in students' attitudes toward unprofessional behaviors by gender. The graduate medical school students showed a stricter attitude toward some factors of academic misconduct than the medical college students. This difference was significant for irresponsibility in class, disrespectful behavior in patient care, and free riding on group assignments. CONCLUSION: This study indicates a critical vulnerability in medical students' professionalism toward academic integrity and responsibility. Further study evidence is needed to confirm whether this professionalism lapse is confined only to this population or is pervasive in other medical schools as well.

Nova face de um velho problema: o autoplágio no cenário da produção científica / A new side of an old problem: self-plagiarism in scientific publications

Este artigo é parte de uma série especial que foi desenvolvida para auxiliar autores no processo da redação científica e comunicação. No cenário da produção científica, dentre as várias infrações éticas, está cada vez mais comum a ocorrência do plágio. Define-se plágio como a apresentação de uma obra contendo partes que pertençam a outra pessoa, sem o devido crédito. Um tipo de plágio que tem ganhado destaque nos últimos anos é o autoplágio, no qual o próprio autor reutiliza seus trabalhos anteriores sem a devida referência. Entretanto, há discussões na comunidade científica sobre esse tipo de plágio, estendendo o termo a algumas má-condutas específicas em publicações científicas. Isso acaba gerando artigos inautênticos e prejudicando a integridade da ciência. O presente artigo tem por objetivo abordar de forma mais detalhada o que é autoplágio, seus motivos e consequências para a comunidade científica. Para tanto, realizou-se uma pesquisa não sistemática da literatura, a fim de também apresentar os principais tipos de autoplágio, o que pode ser feito para evitá-lo e como proceder quando o mesmo é detectado.

This article is part of a special series that was designed to assist authors in the process of scientific writing and communication. Among the various forms of ethical misconduct in scientific publishing, plagiarism is increasingly common. Plagiarism is defined as the presentation of a work containing parts authored by another person without due credit. One type of plagiarism that has gained prominence in recent years is self-plagiarism, in which authors themselves reuse their previous work without proper referencing. However, active discussion remains in the scientific community about this type of plagiarism, with the term being extended to some specific forms of misconduct in scientific publication. This practice leads to inauthentic work and ultimately undermines the integrity of science. The purpose of this article is to address in depth the definition of self-plagiarism, the underlying motives for this practice and its consequences for the scientific community. To do so, a non-systematic review of the literature was conducted. Guidance is provided on the major types of self-plagiarism, what can be done to avoid it and how to proceed when it is detected.

Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education.

INTRODUCTION: Engaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this study seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices. METHOD: In 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items adapted from three published surveys: two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale. The outcome variable was a self-reported misconduct score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, reliability and correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression modelling. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In total, 590 researchers completed the survey. Results from the final regression model indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct score (b = -0.01, ß = -0.22, t = -2.91, p <0.05), suggesting that older researchers tended to report less misconduct. On the other hand, those with more publications had higher misconduct scores (b = 0.001, ß = 0.17, t = 3.27, p < 0.05) and, compared with researchers in the region of North America, researchers in Asia tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.21, ß = 0.12, t = 2.84, p < 0.01). In addition, compared with those who defined their work role as clinician, those who defined their role as researcher tended to have higher misconduct scores (b = 0.12, ß = 0.13, t = 2.15, p < 0.05). Finally, publication pressure emerged as the strongest individual predictor of misconduct (b = 0.20, ß = 0.34, t = 7.82, p < 0.01); the greater the publication pressure, the greater the reported misconduct. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct score, with publication pressure accounting for 10% of the variance in the outcome, above and beyond the other explanatory variables. Although correlational, these findings suggest several researcher characteristics and practice factors that could be targeted to address scientific misconduct and QRPs in HPE.

What Crisis? Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct.

This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices elicited from a sample of 1215 management researchers. We find that misconduct (research that was either fabricated or falsified) is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations (method inadequacy, omission or withholding of contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). When it comes to potential methodological improvements, those that are skeptical about the empirical body of work being published see merit in replication studies. Yet, a sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies, which points to hidden costs and limited incentives for data sharing in management research.

Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications.

It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the "pressures to publish" hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.

How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers.

China has achieved a dramatic development in scientific research over the last few decades. However, just like many other countries, it has also seen a surge of scientific misconducts. With its expansion of international publications, retractions due to suspected research misconduct are also on the rise. A transcultural case study was conducted by investigating the perception of research misbehaviors by Chinese researchers compared to their Belgian Flemish colleagues. The study was designed to find out variation in research practices in different countries and to see how research was shaped and influenced by cultural contexts. An online questionnaire was sent to 3,236 researchers by e-mails and it received a response rate of 13.09%. They were asked to score 32 research misbehaviors on a 5-point scale. The findings suggested that compared to Flemish respondents, the Chinese had a significantly higher acceptance toward most research misbehaviors. To be more specific, the Chinese respondents felt less unacceptable toward behaviors violating such values as honesty, fairness, and verifiability than the Flemish, while their perceptions of behaviors that violated such values as responsibility, objectivity, and truth were not different compared to the Flemish. This case study implies that the Chinese research community is in an urgent need of training in responsible conduct of research and strong as well as sound guidelines for responsible research practices in place.

Questionable research practices in student final theses - Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor's perceived attitudes.

Although questionable research practices (QRPs) and p-hacking have received attention in recent years, little research has focused on their prevalence and acceptance in students. Students are the researchers of the future and will represent the field in the future. Therefore, they should not be learning to use and accept QRPs, which would reduce their ability to produce and evaluate meaningful research. 207 psychology students and fresh graduates provided self-report data on the prevalence and predictors of QRPs. Attitudes towards QRPs, belief that significant results constitute better science or lead to better grades, motivation, and stress levels were predictors. Furthermore, we assessed perceived supervisor attitudes towards QRPs as an important predictive factor. The results were in line with estimates of QRP prevalence from academia. The best predictor of QRP use was students' QRP attitudes. Perceived supervisor attitudes exerted both a direct and indirect effect via student attitudes. Motivation to write a good thesis was a protective factor, whereas stress had no effect. Students in this sample did not subscribe to beliefs that significant results were better for science or their grades. Such beliefs further did not impact QRP attitudes or use in this sample. Finally, students engaged in more QRPs pertaining to reporting and analysis than those pertaining to study design. We conclude that supervisors have an important function in shaping students' attitudes towards QRPs and can improve their research practices by motivating them well. Furthermore, this research provides some impetus towards identifying predictors of QRP use in academia.

How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community.

The aim of our study has been to use a qualitative approach to explore the potential motivations and drivers for unethical behaviors in biomedicine and determine the role of institutions regarding those issues in a small scientific community setting. Three focus groups were held---two with doctoral students and one with active senior researchers. Purposive sampling was used to reach participants at different stages of their scientific careers. Participants in all three focus groups were asked the same questions regarding the characteristics and behaviors of ethical/unethical scientists, ethical climate, role, and responsibility of institutions; they were also asked to suggest ways to improve research integrity. The data analysis included coding of the transcripts, categorization of the initial codes, and identification of themes and patterns. Three main topics were derived from the focus groups discussions. The first included different forms of unethical behaviors including increasing research "waste," non-publication of negative results, authorship manipulation, data manipulation, and repression of collaborators. The second addressed the factors influencing unethical behavior, both external and internal, to the researchers. Two different definitions of ethics in science emerged; one from the categorical perspective and the other from the dimensional perspective. The third topic involved possible routes for improvement, one from within the institution through the research integrity education, research integrity bodies, and quality control, and the other from outside the institution through external supervision of institutions. Based on the results of our study, research misconduct in a small scientific community is perceived to be the consequence of the interaction of several social and psychological factors, both general and specific, for small research communities. Possible improvements should be systematic, aiming both for improvements in work environment and personal awareness in research ethics, and the implementation of those changes should be institutional responsibility.

Research integrity among PhD students within clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: Responsible conduct of research is the basis for the credibility of all research. Research misconduct is defined as the fabrication, falsification or plagiarism committed willfully or grossly negligently in the planning, performing or reporting of research. We undertook a survey of knowledge of the attitudes towards and experiences with research misconduct among PhD students in clinical research. METHODS: A questionnaire previously used in Swedish and Norwegian studies was distributed to PhD students (n = 330) affiliated with the Department of Clinical Research or Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark. RESULTS: A total of 165 PhD students completed the questionnaire in full or in part, yielding an overall response rate of 50%. 18-34% reported to have heard (within the past year) about researchers who had plagiarised, falsified or fabricated data, or plagiarised publications. None reported this to occur in their own department. Few stated that they had felt under pressure to either falsify data (1%) or present results in a misleading way (3%). However, 22% stated to have felt an unethical pressure (within the past year) regarding the inclusion or order of authors. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that, albeit at a low frequency, research misconduct involving PhD students is taking place. Likewise, a high fraction of respondents reported to have been under pressure regarding authorships, which points to questionable research practices in clinical research. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Researchers' interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study.

Despite increasing interest in integrity issues, relatively few studies have examined researchers' own interpretations of integrity. As part of the Perspectives on Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) project, we sought to explore how researchers themselves define research integrity. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with clinical and laboratory-based researchers from across Switzerland. Data were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis and illustrative quotes were selected. Researchers defined integrity in terms of honesty, transparency, and objectivity, and generally stressed the importance of sticking to the research question and avoiding bias in data interpretation. Some saw research integrity as being synonymous with scientific integrity, but others regarded research integrity as being a subset of the wider domain of scientific integrity. A few participants equated research integrity with mere absence of misconduct, but the majority of participants regarded integrity as being more than this. Researchers regarded truth as the key aspect of integrity, though they expressed this in different ways and with various emphases on honesty, transparency, and objectivity. Integrity goes beyond avoiding misconduct, and scientific integrity has a wider domain than research integrity.

Publication misconduct: Perceptions of participants of a faculty development programme.

Background: . Publication misconduct is a commonly reported finding among researchers from various backgrounds including those from the medical sciences. The reasons for such events are diverse and people address them differently. Methods: . The opinions and experiences of 72 medical educators enrolled in an online discussion forum for faculty development were analysed to ascertain possible reasons and ways to address publication misconduct. Results: . Of the 50 educators who participated in the discussion, 46 had one or more experiences of publication misconduct to share. Twelve participants felt that almost all kinds of publication misconduct, i.e. fabrication and falsification of data, plagiarism and authorship issues were a universal phenomenon. In the experience of majority of the participants, publication misconduct was common and often no action was taken. Lack of knowledge and awareness among teachers and students, personal gains, pressure for professional advancement and lack of monitoring and control were identified as the reasons for such misconduct. Several solutions were offered by the participants to address the problem, the most common was to have a formal training programme along with stringent monitoring and control mechanisms at the institutional level. Conclusion: . Publication misconduct occurs and people indulge in it for a variety of reasons. Institutional-level policies may be able to address some of these.

Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error.

Retractions solicited by authors following the discovery of an unintentional error-what we henceforth call a "self-retraction"-are a new phenomenon of growing importance, about which very little is known. Here we present results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations and beliefs that accompanied the experience of a self-retraction. We identified retraction notes that unambiguously reported an honest error and that had been published between the years 2010 and 2015. We limited our sample to retractions with at least one co-author based in the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany or a Scandinavian country, and we invited these authors to a semi-structured interview. Fourteen authors accepted our invitation. Contrary to our initial assumptions, most of our interviewees had not originally intended to retract their paper. They had contacted the journal to request a correction and the decision to retract had been made by journal editors. All interviewees reported that having to retract their own publication made them concerned for their scientific reputation and career, often causing considerable stress and anxiety. Interviewees also encountered difficulties in communicating with the journal and recalled other procedural issues that had unnecessarily slowed down the process of self-retraction. Intriguingly, however, all interviewees reported how, contrary to their own expectations, the self-retraction had brought no damage to their reputation and in some cases had actually improved it. We also examined the ethical motivations that interviewees ascribed, retrospectively, to their actions and found that such motivations included a combination of moral and prudential (i.e. pragmatic) considerations. These preliminary results suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self-retraction.