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.

Scientific disintegrity as a public bad.

In this article, I argue that scientific dishonesty essentially results from an incentive problem; I do so using a standard economic model-the public bad. Arguably, at least in the short run, most scientists would increase their personal utility by being sloppy with scientific standards. Yet, if they do, it becomes more difficult for all scientists to make their voice heard in society, to convince policy makers to assign public funds to academia, and to lead fulfilling academic lives. The nature of the ensuing governance problem (and appropriate policy intervention) hinges on the definition of scientists' utility function. The policy problem is less grave if society attaches disproportionally more weight to severe or widespread violations and if individual scientists do not precisely know in advance when they will quit their academic lives. If most scientists internalize most scientific standards, then the problem is alleviated. However, internalization is immaterial if honorable scientists dislike that others advance their careers by violating those standards. Sanctions are helpful, even if relatively mild. However, it is important to also punish those who do not punish others for breaking the rules or, alternatively, to put some centralized mechanism for vigilance and enforcement into place.

Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications.

The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.

Perspective: research misconduct: the search for a remedy.

Research misconduct-fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism-is an insidious problem in the scientific community today with the capacity to harm science, scientists, and the public. Federal agencies require that research trainees complete a course designed to deter such behavior, but the author could find no evidence to suggest that this effort has been effective. In fact, research shows that most cases of misconduct continue to go unreported.The author conducted a detailed examination of 146 individual Office of Research Integrity reports from 1992 to 2003 and determined that these acts of misconduct were the results of individual psychological traits and the circumstances in which the researchers found themselves. Therefore, a course in research misconduct, such as is now federally mandated, should not be expected to have a significant effect. However, a course developed specifically for support staff, who currently do not receive such training, might prove effective.Improving the quality of mentoring is essential to meaningfully deal with this issue. Therefore, the quality of mentorship should be a factor in the evaluation of training grants for funding. In addition, mentors should share responsibility for their trainees' published work. The whistleblower can also play a significant role in this effort. However, the potential whistleblower is deterred by a realistic fear of retaliation. Therefore, institutions must establish policies that acknowledge the whistleblower's contribution to the integrity of science and provide truly effective protection from retaliation. An increase in whistleblowing activity would provide greater, earlier exposure of misconduct and serve as a deterrent.

Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk?

BACKGROUND: Medical research so flawed as to be retracted may put patients at risk by influencing treatments. OBJECTIVE: To explore hypotheses that more patients are put at risk if a retracted paper appears in a journal with a high impact factor (IF) so that the paper is widely read; is written by a 'repeat offender' author who has produced other retracted research; or is a clinical trial. METHODS: English language papers (n=788) retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Only those papers retracting research with humans or freshly derived human material were included; 180 retracted primary papers (22.8%) met inclusion criteria. Subjects enrolled and patients treated were tallied, both in the retracted primary studies and in 851 secondary studies that cited a retracted primary paper. RESULTS: Retracted papers published in high-IF journals were cited more often (p=0.0004) than those in low-IF journals, but there was no difference between high- and low-IF papers in subjects enrolled or patients treated. Retracted papers published by 'repeat offender' authors did not enrol more subjects or treat more patients than papers by one-time offenders, nor was there a difference in number of citations. However, retracted clinical trials treated more patients (p=0.0002) and inspired secondary studies that put more patients at risk (p=0.0019) than did other kinds of medical research. CONCLUSIONS: If the goal is to minimise risk to patients, the appropriate focus is on clinical trials. Clinical trials form the foundation of evidence-based medicine; hence, the integrity of clinical trials must be protected.

A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: do they really mean it?

Since published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct are a species of image restoration, common strategies for responding publicly to accusations can be expected: from sincere apologies to ritualistic apologies. This study is a rhetorical examination of these strategies as they are reflected in choices in language: it compares the published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct. The letters are examined for any shifts in language between the charge of misconduct and the response to the charge in order to assess whether the apology was sincere or ritualistic. The results indicate that although most authors' published acknowledgments of scientific misconduct seem to minimize culpability by means of the strategic use of language, their resulting ritualistic apologies often still satisfy in some way the accusers' (and thus their community's) concerns.

Research integrity and misconduct: a clarification of the concepts.

The commercialization of research and the ever changing scientific environment has led scholars to shift the focus from promoting research integrity to regulating misconduct. As a result, most literature explains research integrity in terms of avoidance of misconduct. The purpose of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion on research integrity and research misconduct. This article explores the meaning of research integrity and research misconduct, and how research integrity can be promoted to ensure safer research and scholarship. We believe that the discussion can help clarify some hazy areas in the research and publication processes, and appreciate some crucial aspects that they may have seen taken for granted. The purpose of this article is to share with the readers some clarification or analysis of the two concepts namely: research integrity and misconduct. The objectives are: (1) To explore and analyse the concepts of research integrity and research misconduct from the educational or developmental perspective and not the legal perspective as others in literature have done. (2) To stimulate the reflection and discussion on strategies to promote research integrity and thus prevent research misconduct Literature review and concept analysis was undertaken to clarify the two concepts. We argue that the two concepts can be viewed along a continuum, i.e. where research integrity ends, research misconduct starts. We also argue that it is the responsibility of the research community at large to always ensure that the scientific ethics balance is maintained throughout the research process to ensure research integrity and avoid research misconduct. We also argue that research integrity is interlinked with morality while misconduct is interlinked with immorality.

The IRB paradox: could the protectors also encourage deceit?

The efforts of some institutional review boards (IRBs) to exercise what is viewed as appropriate oversight may contribute to deceit on the part of investigators who feel unjustly treated. An organizational justice paradigm provides a useful context for exploring why certain IRB behaviors may lead investigators to believe that they have not received fair treatment. These feelings may, in turn, lead to intentional deception by investigators that IRBs will rarely detect. Paradoxically, excessive protective zeal by IRBs may actually encourage misconduct by some investigators. The authors contend that, by fostering a climate in which investigators perceive that they receive fair and unbiased treatment, IRBs optimize the likelihood of collegial compliance with appropriate participant protections.

Sanctions and remediation for research misconduct: differential diagnosis, treatment, and prevention.

The last decade of experience indicates that the number of confirmed instances of research misconduct remains extremely small. Yet, each institution that has had an investigation recognizes how damaging even one case is to the scientific enterprise in terms of the morale of scientists working with or near the one found guilty, in terms of public trust in the research enterprise, and in terms of the consumption of extraordinary amounts of faculty effort to conduct a fair and thorough investigation of the allegation. Every research institution has a strong interest in developing its diagnostic, treatment, and preventive capacities to the point where this scientific illness is as nearly eradicated as possible. The author suggests a spectrum of responses to match the spectrum of offenses in order to protect the scientist, the scientific community, the institution, and the public. In some instances remediation as well as sanctions may be indicated. Remediation in this context applies both to the scientist and to the research institution because both may have problems that need correction or modification to ensure the integrity of science. Institutional improvement in developing and applying sanctions and remediation should contribute both to more effective treatment and to better prevention strategies.

Problems in research integrity arising from misconceptions about the ownership of research.

Many allegations of scientific misconduct result from activities that are perceived by the complainants as the "theft" of ideas, experimental results, or other intellectual property. The authors' thesis is that many of these allegations originate in misconceptions about the ownership of publicly supported scientific research. Some universities and medical schools may have their own codes for authorship, and journals and professional societies have codes or guidelines. In the NIH intramural programs, research data are considered to be the property of the institutes, not the individual researchers. In contrast, the training and experience of most scientists lead them to consider research data as being theirs. The paper discusses the origins of this attitude toward data and the ways that the structures of university laboratories and training programs lead to confusion and misunderstandings of researchers' "rights" to data. Also, emotional and personality factors often complicate these issues and lead to confrontations. Other misconceptions widely held among researchers: the false concepts of "my grant" and the "co-principal" investigator, ideas about who is and is not qualified to be an author, and ideas about sharing data. The authors emphasize the importance of scientifically literate legal advisers and the necessity for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and professors to understand their institutions' and grantors' guidelines and their obligations as scientists. At the heart of these obligations at all levels of research is honesty.

A new perspective on scientific misconduct.

The level of social concern about any form of deviance reveals much about the society that disapproves of the behavior. In that light, why has scientific misconduct recently received so much public attention and opprobrium? Inquiring into this and related areas raises questions about the changing relationship between science and society. Rising concern about scientific misconduct may indicate that the state and other powerful actors see the value of science clearly, a perception perhaps intensified by a growing reliance upon science, the value of science as a resource for power, and the resulting desire of powerful social groups to control science. An important factor is the increased importance science has acquired within organizations (such as universities and businesses), requiring scientists to engage in more intense interactions with the professionals who work there, including lawyers, accountants, public relations specialists, and administrators. In itself, this tighter coupling of science to other social and organizational purposes would be expected to increase scrutiny and the likelihood of interventions. Also, this more frequent contact makes competition for dominance between professions more likely. Policies might be devised to renegotiate the relationship between science and society in a way that might alleviate the "pathogenic pressures" in the present environment. Specifically, the author suggests eight changes, including reducing and redistributing the financial rewards immediately available to scientists, their companies, and their universities by installing a form of "escrow" account to hold profits for a fixed period of time; decoupling graduate student and postdoctoral support from research grants; and resisting the trend to replace intrinsic rewards and controls with extrinsic ones.