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.

Cell line authentication: a necessity for reproducible biomedical research.

Immortalized or continuous cell lines are invaluable tools in basic and preclinical research. However, the widespread use of misidentified cell lines is a serious threat to scientific reproducibility. Based on the experiences of mandatory cell line authentication at the International Journal of Cancer (IJC), we provide an overview of the issues pertinent to misidentified cell lines and discuss available solutions. We also summarize the lessons learned, revealing that at least 5% of the human cell lines used in manuscripts considered for peer review are misidentified. About 4% of the considered manuscripts are rejected for severe cell line problems, and most are subsequently published in other journals. In order to diminish such malpractice and its consequences for the scientific record, we postulate that strict multi-layered quality control is essential. Besides journals and publishers, we encourage scientists, research institutions, and funders to take action on the matter and revise their respective policies. Hence, we provide concrete recommendations on introducing regular authentication schemes and staff training, and discuss future steps for enhancing good cell culture practices.

Protecting and promoting editorial independence.

We argue that editorial independence, through robust practice of publication ethics and research integrity, promotes good science and prevents bad science. We elucidate the concept of research integrity, and then discuss the dimensions of editorial independence. Best practice guidelines exist, but compliance with these guidelines varies. Therefore, we make recommendations for protecting and strengthening editorial independence.

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.

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.

Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing necessity for government-led policy changes on clinical research ethics during pandemic, the scope of previous literature is limited to Korean government's pandemic response strategies or reflections of research ethics at the level of institutions and academic societies. This paper examines the proactive policy changes and responses by the South Korean government in addressing the challenges and issues of research ethics against the backdrop of the urgency of rapid development and emergency supply of medical products during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted searches of various government documents, using predetermined keywords related to research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only documents issued by governments or public institutions were included. A total of 24 documents were selected for analysis. They were divided into two phases: the first phase for urgent response (January 2020-February 2021) and the second phase (March 2021-February 2023) for long-term preparedness. RESULTS: The Korean government recommended several measures of research governance to accelerate the ethical review of COVID-related research to be shortened less than one week: the joint operation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exempted or expedited review by a special review committee, guidelines for urgent reviews, and designation of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences as the supervising agency for the Clinical Trial Safety Support Institution as well as the Central IRB. It allowed temporary non-face-to-face methods for informed consent process (telephone explanations and a photo of the original signed consent) and clinical trials (telephone counselling and prescription, proxy prescription, and drug delivery and supply to clinical trial participants, and online ethics training). CONCLUSION: As a result of South Korea's commitment to ethical principles in their pandemic response, the medical system did not experience collapses due to the pandemic, and pandemic research was conducted with careful ethical considerations. The pandemic ethics immunization during the Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2015 laid the foundation for prompt government initiatives that ensured both pandemic research ethics and pandemic response ethics.

An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.

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

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.

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.

In the research integrity literature, funding plays two different roles: it is thought to elevate questionable research practices (QRPs) due to perverse incentives, and it is a potential actor to incentivize research integrity standards. Recent studies, asking funders, have emphasized the importance of the latter. However, the perspective of active researchers on the impact of competitive research funding on science has not been explored yet. Here, I address this issue by conducting a series of group sessions with researchers in two different countries with different degrees of competition for funding, from three scientific fields (medical sciences, natural sciences, humanities), and in two different career stages (permanent versus temporary employment). Researchers across all groups experienced that competition for funding shapes science, with many unintended negative consequences. Intriguingly, these consequences had little to do with the type of QRPs typically being presented in the research integrity literature. Instead, the researchers pointed out that funding could result in predictable, fashionable, short-sighted, and overpromising science. This was seen as highly problematic: scientists experienced that the 'projectification' of science makes it more and more difficult to do any science of real importance: plunging into the unknown or addressing big issues that need a long-term horizon to mature. They also problematized unintended negative effects from collaboration and strategizing. I suggest it may be time to move away from a focus on QRPs in connection with funding, and rather address the real problems. Such a shift may then call for entirely different types of policy actions.