La Oficina de Integridad Científica en España. Una tarea pendiente / The Research Integrity Office in Spain. A pending issue

En los últimos años han salido a la luz muchos casos de mala conducta científica, algunos con importantes consecuencias, que han evidenciado las brechas que globalmente existen en cuanto a integridad científica. En España también se han dado casos notables de mala conducta científica en el ámbito de la investigación biomédica. Sin embargo, hasta el momento no se ha creado un organismo encargado de supervisar las fases de ejecución, análisis y publicación de las investigaciones biomédicas desde un punto de vista ético. Por lo tanto, en este contexto, consideramos que es necesaria la creación de una oficina que supervise la integridad científica en España y que actúe en caso de sospecha de mala conducta científica, llevando a cabo una investigación independiente y con capacidad sancionadora. La existencia de dicho organismo sería de especial importancia en el caso de las investigaciones financiadas con fondos públicos, ya que en ese caso el fraude en investigación supondría la malversación de dinero público. La creación de una oficina que realmente actúe frente a los casos detectados podría tener un efecto disuasorio sobre una potencial mala conducta de algunos investigadores, previniendo así situaciones de mala conducta científica. (AU)

In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct. (AU)

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.

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.

Trends in Academic Misrepresentation in Neurological Surgery Residency Applicants: A 2-Year Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Academic misrepresentation is not an unknown phenomenon, with recent reports in neurosurgery detecting a 45% misrepresentation rate in prospective neurosurgical residents. The purpose of this study was to determine current rates of academic misrepresentation by prospective neurosurgical residents at a single institution across 2 distinct application cycles. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all Electronic Residency Application Service applications to 1 institution's neurosurgical residency program in the 2015 (n = 320) and 2020 (n = 355) application cycles. Reported academic works were verified through an extensive Web search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and the individual journal Web sites. Misrepresentation was defined in our study as listing work that does not exist, self-promotion to primary authorship, self-promotion (excluding primary authorship), incorrectly listing online-only publications, and listing non-peer-reviewed work as peer-reviewed. RESULTS: In 2015, 253 (79.1%) applicants reported a total of 2097 citations and 305 (85.9%) applicants reported a total of 3018 citations in 2020 (P < 0.05). Median peer-reviewed articles per applicant rose significantly in 2020 (3.0 vs. 4.0, P < 0.001). Misrepresentation rates decreased dramatically in 2020 to 18.4% from a previously reported misrepresentation rate of 45% in 2012 (P < 0.0001). Increased United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 2 scores were associated with a decreased likelihood of misrepresentation (odds ratio = 0.97, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Misrepresentation rates within neurosurgical residency candidates have significantly decreased despite an increase in reported citations. A variety of steps including education, modifying reporting methods, and increased screening may help even further decrease misrepresentation.

How to bring peer review ghostwriters out of the dark.

Early career researchers are frequent and valuable contributors to peer review. Systemic changes that acknowledge this fact would result in ethical co-reviewing, peer reviews of greater quality, and a reduction in peer reviewer burden.

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.

Most studies of research integrity in the general media focus on the coverage of specific cases of misconduct. This paper tries to provide a more general, long-term perspective by analysing media discourse about research integrity and related themes in the Italian and United Kingdom daily press from 2000 to 2016. The results, based on a corpus of 853 articles, show that media coverage largely mirrors debates about integrity and misconduct. In fact, salient themes in the news include the importance to overcome the so-called "rotten apple" paradigm; the key role of public trust in science; and the need to address flaws in the peer-review system.

Current State in Scientific Publishing: AOA Critical Issues Symposium.

Orthopaedic surgery has a rich history of publication of the science that supports the practice of our specialty, which dates from 1887. Orthopaedic publishing has evolved since that time, expanding from print to online access, with increasing variation in publication models, including open-access journals and article repositories, and methods of information delivery that include video, data archives, and commentary. This symposium provides an overview of the changes and challenges in the publication of orthopaedic science.

Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data.

Recent reports suggest that there has been an increase in the number of retractions and corrections of published articles due to post-publication detection of problematic data. Moreover, fraudulent data and sloppy science have long-term effects on the scientific literature and subsequent projects based on false and unreproducible claims. At the JCI, we have introduced several data screening checks for manuscripts prior to acceptance in an attempt to reduce the number of post-publication corrections and retractions, with the ultimate goal of increasing confidence in the papers we publish.