Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders.

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.

Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment.

The integrity of randomized clinical trials (RCT) has become a concern owing to a recent rise in the number of retractions and the repercussions this has for evidence-based patient care. However, there is little research on the subject of RCT integrity assessment. Recent literature reviews have revealed that journals' authors' instructions concerning integrity and their investigation policies concerning allegations of misconduct are heterogeneous. The judicious use of integrity tests applied to RCT manuscripts is hampered by an absence of data concerning misconduct prevalence (pre-test probability), a failure to evaluate test performance (validity) and a lack of consensus over a gold standard (against which test accuracy can be evaluated). These deficiencies hinder the post-publication correction of RCT records, the integrity evaluations in systematic reviews of RCTs and the prospective application of preventive solutions in RCT peer-review and preprint assessment. Dealing with the current controversy about trustworthiness of RCT evidence requires a strong investment in research, reform and education concerning research integrity. The purpose of this review article is to highlight the current limitations in dealing with trial integrity-related concerns and to propose solutions to some of these issues.

What Are the Trends in Research Publication Misrepresentation Among Orthopaedic Residency and Fellowship Applicants From 1996 to 2019? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals? METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and follow-up. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 ± 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and definition of research misrepresentation were considered to allow for a discussion of overall trends. The percentage of misrepresentation was further broken down by the misrepresentation type. Applicant characteristics and destination of submitted articles were also evaluated. Given the potential overlap between applicants among the studies, no pooled analysis was conducted, and results are presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: The percentage of overall publication misrepresentation was estimated to range between 1% (13 of 1100) and 21% (27 of 131), with more-recent studies reporting a lower proportion of overall articles misrepresented. Most studies we found claimed that authorship of a nonexistent article was the most common type of misrepresentation. Nonauthorship of an existing article and incorrect authorship order were less common. The percentage of applications with at least one misrepresentation was approximately 20% between 1998 and 2017. Most studies found no applicant characteristics, such as match outcomes, demographic markers, or academic records, that were consistently associated with a higher odds of the candidate misrepresenting his or her research credentials. Finally, approximately half of the articles listed as submitted to journals went on to publication, with one-third going to a different journal with a lower Impact Factor. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review found that the percentage of overall publication misrepresentations among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants has generally been low over the past 20 years. However, approximately one-fifth of applications had at least one research misrepresentation, with 2% having multiple misrepresentations on reported publications. There were no consistent applicant characteristics associated with higher odds of research misrepresentation. Additionally, most of the articles listed as submitted to journals for publication were ultimately published. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the decrease in overall publication misrepresentation is encouraging, our finding that one-fifth of applicants have research misrepresentation is a cause for concern. In light of a continually evolving application process, orthopaedic residency and fellowship programs must ensure there is integrity related to information that is self-reported by applicants. These findings also serve to encourage faculty members involved in the application screening and decision process to limit biases related to applicant demographics perceived to be associated with a high odds of misrepresentation. Furthermore, governing agencies and program leadership should evaluate methods of verifying unpublished work and provide opportunities for applicants to give publication updates throughout the application cycle.

Perceptions of plagiarism among PhDs across the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts: Results from a national survey in Brazil.

Plagiarism allegations are not rare in the history of science, and credit for prior work was and continues to be a source of disputes, involving notions of priority of discovery and of plagiarism. However, consensus over what constitutes plagiarism among scientists from different fields cannot be taken for granted. We conducted a national survey exploring perceptions of plagiarism among PhD holders registered in the database of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. This survey was sent to 143,405 PhD holders across the fields, in the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts, with a response rate of about 20%. The results suggest that core principles about plagiarism are shared among this multidisciplinary community, corroborating Robert K. Merton's observations that concerns over plagiarism and priority disputes are not field specific. This study offers insight into the way plagiarism is perceived in this community and sheds light on the problem for international collaborative research networks. The data focus on a particular research system in Latin America, but, given the cultural similarities that bind most Latin American nations, these results may be relevant to other PhD populations in the region and should provide an opportunity for comparison with studies from other emerging, non-Anglophone regions.

Assessment criteria for research misconduct: Taiwanese researchers' perceptions.

Assessing the severity of an instance of research misconduct is undoubtedly challenging, especially when the result of the assessment may be key to suggesting subsequent sanctions. However, only a few references are currently available in the Taiwanese academic context. In a previous study, the present authors developed The Assessment Criteria for Research Misconduct (The Criteria) based on existing international policies and guidelines and reviewed by local research scholars for content validity. The Criteria, with a total of 28 items, were organized into three sections: general criteria for determining case severity, aggravating criteria, and mitigating criteria. In the current study, the authors further conducted a survey and collected data on 277 Taiwanese researchers' perceived importance of each criterion included in The Criteria. The results showed that participants generally agreed with the importance of all criteria. However, the group that lacked case-handling experience attributed significantly greater levels of importance to the criterion of original will (proactive, passive, or coercive) toward participation in misconduct than did the experienced group. In addition, the participants exhibited greater variation in the perceived importance of the mitigating criteria. Finally, the possible utility of The Criteria in real contexts and training materials is suggested in the study.

Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis.

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.

Policy relevance and the ethical conduct of science.

Scientific enquiry and the communication of science are essential to achieving development goals. The demand for evidence-based policy poses a challenge to maintaining the ethical conduct of science. The modern scientist faces intense competition in light of the changing nature of collaborative efforts, the quickening pace and increasing complexity of research endeavours and a growing emphasis on commercialisation of research results. Academic performance criteria continually change, becoming more demanding and increasing complex to measure. The integrity of the scientific community is challenged by cases of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. The mass production of science outputs, evidenced by the incredible rise of predatory journals, poses risks for the veracity of science. Yet, scientists are not the only ones driven by performance targets. Under the constant scrutiny of governing boards, research and development funders-both public and private-are increasingly pressed to demonstrate outputs, outcomes and impact. There is an urgent need for independent research but also a need for consensus with regard to policy guidance. Consensus studies expect scientists to make sense of the available science and find a way of presenting the controversies, contradictions and convergence of evidence to guide policy decisions. Policy consensus dialogues can valorise science guidance. These practices adopt multidisciplinary approaches, bringing top-rated scientists from a variety of disciplines around the table to contribute best practice examples, share experiences and lessons learnt against the background of solid critique of existing research.

Reflexões sobre o plágio e a fraude em estudos brasileiros / Reflections on plagiarism and fraud in Brazilian studies / Reflexiones sobre plagio y fraude en estudios brasileños

Resumo Este estudo reflete sobre o plágio e a fraude na produção científica brasileira por meio de revisão integrativa de artigos publicados entre janeiro de 2009 e junho de 2019. As publicações foram buscadas nas bases DOAJ, Lilacs, PubMed, SciELO e Web of Science, com os descritores exatos "plagiarism", "scientific misconduct", "fraud" e "Brazil". Com a rápida expansão da internet e o desenvolvimento tecnológico, os casos de má conduta na produção científica aumentaram, ocorrendo, por exemplo, adulteração, invenção ou reutilização de dados, múltiplas submissões, conflitos de autoria e de interesses, publicação "salame" (fracionada) e plágio. Entre as más condutas acadêmicas mais comuns estão a "cola" e o plágio, presentes nos mais diversos níveis de ensino, da educação básica à educação superior.

Abstract This integrative review reflects on plagiarism and fraud in Brazilian studies based on scientific production and academic attitude. Literature search of articles published between January 2009 and June 2019 was conducted in the DOAJ, LILACS, PubMed, SciELO and Web of Science databases, using the exact descriptors "Plagiarism," "Scientific Misconduct," "Fraud" and "Brazil." The rapid expansion of the internet and technological development lead to increased cases of misconduct in scientific production, occurring, for example, tampering, fabrication or reuse of data, multiple submissions, conflicts of authorship and interests, salami publication (salami slicing) and plagiarism. Among the most common academic misconducts are the copying and plagiarism, present at all education levels, whether in primary or tertiary education.

Resumen Este estudio promueve una reflexión sobre el plagio y el fraude en estudios brasileños basados en la producción científica y la postura académica a través de una revisión integradora de artículos publicados entre enero de 2009 y junio de 2019. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos DOAJ, LILACS, PubMed, SciELO y Web. of Science, utilizando los descriptores exactos "Plagio", "Mala conducta científica", "Fraude" y "Brasil". Con la rápida expansión de Internet y el desarrollo tecnológico, han aumentado los casos de mala conducta en la producción científica, ocurriendo, por ejemplo, adulteración, invención o reutilización de datos, múltiples presentaciones, conflictos de autoría e intereses, publicación "salami" (fraccional) y plagio. Entre las faltas académicas más comunes se encuentran el "pegamento" y el plagio, presentes en los más diversos estratos, ya sea en la Educación Básica o en la Educación Superior.

[Actuality of conflicts of interests in medicine. From financial interests to the run for scientific publication]. / Actualité des conflits d'intérêts en médecine. Des intérêts financiers à la course à la publication scientifique.

Clinical practice and medical research can expose to several situations with risks of conflicts of interests. Such situations can induce attenuations of their primary professional interest in favor of, so-called, secondary interests, and leading to bias in their judgement and actions. In this area, if financial conflicts of interests are consistent and frequently dominant, intellectual conflicts of interests have to be analyzed and considered, like those amplified and even induced by the current tremendous competition for scientific publication. In this article, after a contextual review of conflicts of interests in medicine, we will document and discuss more specifically those frequently induced by leaks of financial interests and those linked by evolutions of the current scientific expansion and competition.

Ethical failings: The problematic history of cancer risk assessment.

This paper demonstrates that unethical conduct by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel led to their recommendation of the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) Model for radiation risk assessment and its subsequent adoption by the US and the world community. The analysis, which is based largely on preserved communications of the US NAS Genetics Panel members, reveals that Panel members and their administrative leadership at the NAS displayed an integrated series of unethical actions designed to ensure, (1) the acceptance of the LNT and (2) funding to radiation geneticist panel members and professional colleagues. These findings are significant because major public policies in open democracies, such as cancer risk assessment and other issues impacted by public fears of radiation or chemical exposures, require ethical foundations. Recognition of these ethical failures of the BEAR I Genetics Panel should require a high level administrative, legislative and scientific reassessment of the scientific foundations of cancer risk assessment, with the likely result necessitating revision of current policies and practices. The BEAR I Genetics Panel, 1956 Science journal publication should immediately be retracted because it contains deliberate misrepresentations of the scientific record that were designed to manipulate scientific and public opinion on radiation risk assessment in a dishonest manner.

The Legal Consequences of Research Misconduct: False Investigators and Grant Proposals.

In a survey on research misconduct, roughly 20% of the respondents admitted that they have submitted federal grant proposals that include scholars as research participants even though those scholars were not expected to contribute to the research effort. This manuscript argues that adding such false investigators is illegal, violating multiple federal statutes including the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. §1001), the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §3729), and False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Claims (18 U.S.C. §287). Moreover, it is not only the offending academics and the false investigators that face civil and criminal penalties because administrators may also be liable if they sign off on proposals and are in a position to know that false investigators might be included. Policy recommendations that should reduce the use of false investigators include changing institutional cultures, better training and oversight of the responsible conduct of research, and, most importantly, making all grant reviews double blind.

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.