On "intent" in research misconduct.

Research misconduct, broadly defined as acts of fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism, violate the value system of science, cost significant wastage of public resources, and in more extreme cases endanger research participants or members of the society at large. Determination of culpability in research misconduct requires establishment of intent on the part of the respondent or perpetrator. However, "intent" is a state of mind, and its perception is subjective, unequivocal evidence for which would not be as readily established compared to the objective evidence available for the acts themselves. Here, we explore the concept of "intent" in research misconduct, how it is framed in criminological/legal terms, and narrated from a psychological perspective. Based on these, we propose a framework whereby lines of questioning and investigation, as defined by legislative terms and informed by the models and tools of psychology, could help in establishing a preponderance of evidence for culpable intent. Such a framework could be useful in research misconduct adjudications and in delivering sanctions.

Publishing important work that lacks validity or reproducibility - pushing frontiers or corrupting science?

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

Debates on humanization of human-animal brain chimeras - are we putting the cart before the horses?

Research on human-animal chimeras have elicited alarms and prompted debates. Those involving the generation of chimeric brains, in which human brain cells become anatomically and functionally intertwined with their animal counterparts in varying ratios, either via xenografts or embryonic co-development, have been considered the most problematic. The moral issues stem from a potential for "humanization" of the animal brain, as well as speculative changes to the host animals' consciousness or sentience, with consequential alteration in the animal hosts' moral status. However, critical background knowledge appears to be missing to resolve these debates. Firstly, there is no consensus on animal sentience vis-à-vis that of humans, and no established methodology that would allow a wholesome and objective assessment of changes in animal sentience resulting from the introduction of human brain cells. Knowledge in interspecies comparative neuropsychology that could allow effective demarcation of a state of "humanization" is also lacking. Secondly, moral status as a philosophical construct has no scientific and objective points of reference. Either changes in sentience or humanization effects would remain unclear unless there are some neuroscientific research grounding. For a bioethical stance based on moral status of human-animal brain chimera to make meaningful contributions to regulatory policies, it might first need to be adequately informed by, and with its arguments constructed, in a manner that are factually in line with the science. In may be prudent for approved research projects involving the generation of human-animal brain chimera to have a mandatory component of assessing plausible changes in sentience.

COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go.

Resnik, Hosseini and Rasmussen's take on universities having conflict of interest (COI), and should engage an independent research integrity organization in investigating research misconduct (RM) allegations against top officials, is prudent and timely. COI could be conceived either against or for in the processes toward the conviction of a respondent. For the latter, we need look no further than another recent Harvard case involving Francesca Gino.

Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research.

Climate change stood out as an important ethical issue that is contemplated, at least among early-stage researchers, in Buedo and colleagues' collected views on ethical issues in preclinical research. It is about time that all scientists and researchers, young or old, to stand to be accountable for our contributions toward environmental crises in our work, and conversely to think about how these crises could be mitigated by our research.

Potential Issues in Mandating a Disclosure of Institutional Investigation in Retraction Notices.

A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927-2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.

In Situ Reprogramming of Neurons and Glia - A Risk in Altering Memory and Personality?

The recent emergence of reprogramming technologies to convert brain cell types or epigenetically alter neurons and neural progenitors in vivo and in situ hold significant promises in brain repair and neuronal aging reversal. However, given the significant epigenetic and transcriptomic changes to components of the existing neuronal cells and network, we question if these reprogramming technology might inadvertently alter or erase memory engrams, conceivably resulting in changes in narrative identity or personality. We suggest that the nature of these alterations might be less predictable compared to memory and personality changes known to be associated with diseases, drugs or brain stimulation therapies. While research in applying reprogramming technologies to neurological ailments and aging should continue, more targeted analyses should be put in place in animal experiments to gauge the severity and degree of memory alterations, and appropriate risk and benefit analyses should be conducted before these technologies move into human trials.

Are there accurate and legitimate ways to machine-quantify predatoriness, or an urgent need for an automated online tool?

Yamada and Teixeira da Silva voiced valid concerns with the inadequacies of an online machine learning-based tool to detect predatory journals, and stressed on the urgent need for an automated, open, online-based semi-quantitative system that measures "predatoriness". We agree that the said machine learning-based tool lacks accuracy in its demarcation and identification of journals outside those already found within existing black and white lists, and that its use could have undesirable impact on the community. We note further that the key characteristic of journals being predatory, namely a lack of stringent peer review, would normally not have the visibility necessary for training and informing machine learning-based online tools. This, together with the gray zone of inadequate scholarly practice and the plurality in authors' perception of predatoriness, makes it desirable for any machine-based, quantitative assessment to be complemented or moderated by a community-based, qualitative assessment that would do more justice to both journals and authors.

Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?

Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.

In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer.

Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer's points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer's opinion of a "disconnect" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer's arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.

Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria.

This letter to the editor suggests adding a technical point to the new editorial policy expounded by Hosseini et al. on the mandatory disclosure of any use of natural language processing (NLP) systems, or generative AI, in writing scholarly publications. Such AI systems should naturally also be forbidden from being named as authors, because they would not have fulfilled prevailing authorship guidelines (such as the widely adopted ICMJE authorship criteria).

A Review of Scientific Ethics Issues Associated with the Recently Approved Drugs for Alzheimer's Disease.

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the devastating and most prevailing underlying cause for age-associated dementia, has no effective disease-modifying treatment. The last approved drug for the relief of AD symptoms was in 2003. The recent approval of sodium oligomannate (GV-971, 2019) in China and the human antibody aducanumab in the USA (ADUHELM, 2021) therefore represent significant breakthroughs, albeit ones that are fraught with controversy. Here, we explore potential scientific ethics issues associated with GV-971 and aducanumab's development and approval. While these issues may be belied by socioeconomic and political complexities in the heady business of commercial drug development, they are of fundamental importance to scientific integrity and ultimately, welfare of patients. We posit that the push for approval of both AD drugs based on incomplete research and unconvincing marginal effectiveness is ethically unsound. Regardless of how both these drugs shall perform in the market for the years to come, the scientific ethics issues and potentially questionable research practices should therefore be duly noted and lessons learned.

Research data mismanagement - from questionable research practice to research misconduct.

Good record keeping practice and research data management underlie responsible research conduct and promote reproducibility of research findings in the sciences. In many cases of research misconduct, inadequate research data management frequently appear as an accompanying finding. Findings of disorganized or otherwise poor data archival or loss of research data are, on their own, not usually considered as indicative of research misconduct. Focusing on the availability of raw/primary data and the replicability of research based on these, we posit that most, if not all, instances of research data mismanagement (RDMM) could be considered a questionable research practice (QRP). Furthermore, instances of RDMM at their worst could indeed be viewed as acts of research misconduct. Here, we analyze with postulated scenarios the contexts and circumstances under which RDMM could be viewed as a significant misrepresentation of research (ie. falsification), or data fabrication. We further explore how RDMM might potentially be adjudicated as research misconduct based on intent and consequences. Defining how RDMM could constitute QRP or research misconduct would aid the formulation of relevant institutional research integrity policies to mitigate undesirable events stemming from RDMM.

At the Research Frontiers of Small GTPases.

Small GTPases act as molecular switches in regulating a myriad of cellular signaling, cytoskeletal dynamics, vesicular trafficking, and membrane/organelle transport processes. Here, I provide an editorial overview of papers collected in this Special Issue on the "Regulation and Function of Small GTPases 2.0".

A research misconduct severity matrix that could serve to harmonize adjudication of findings.

The procedures undertaken to investigate a research misconduct are usually dictated by research ethics and integrity policy, prescribed either by the institute or by the national agency overseeing research. This policy would typically contain information on how an investigation should be conducted, as well as a non-exhaustive list of what constitutes research misconduct. Typically lacking from these policies would be a precise prescription of how the degree of severity of research misconduct could be determined. Adjudication of severity may often be left to the discretion of individual research integrity officers, or a committee of enquiry. Owing to the subjectivity of this process, the conclusion reached could vary between investigating officers/committees, even when adjudicating based on similar evidence. This variation would likely have an impact on the sanctions delivered. We hereby propose a research misconduct severity matrix, which considers eight independent ethical elements with different weightage, each assigned a numerical score by factoring against five different shades of severity (from minor to major). The sum of the scores associated with these elements returns the research misconduct severity score, a numerical value which would aid investigating officers/committees in reaching a consensus on misconduct severity, and better standardize sanctions meted out.

Moral obligations in conducting stem cell-based therapy trials for autism spectrum disorder.

Unregulated patient treatments and approved clinical trials have been conducted with haematopoietic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). While the former direct-to-consumer practice is usually considered rogue and should be legally constrained, regulated clinical trials could also be ethically questionable. Here, we outline principal objections against these trials as they are currently conducted. Notably, these often lack a clear rationale for how transplanted cells may confer a therapeutic benefit in ASD, and thus, have ill-defined therapeutic outcomes. We posit that ambiguous and unsubstantiated descriptions of outcome from such clinical trials may nonetheless appeal to the lay public as being based on authentic scientific findings. These may further fuel caregivers of patients with ASD to pursue unregulated direct-to-consumer treatments, thus exposing them to unnecessary risks. There is, therefore, a moral obligation on the part of those regulating and conducting clinical trials of stem cell-based therapeutic for ASD minors to incorporate clear therapeutic targets, scientific rigour and reporting accuracy in their work. Any further stem cell-based trials for ASD unsupported by significant preclinical advances and particularly sound scientific hypothesis and aims would be ethically indefensible.