Diez errores estadísticos frecuentes que tener en cuenta al escribir o revisar un artículo / Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript

Inspirados por esfuerzos más amplios para hacer más sólidas las conclusiones de la investigación científica, hemos recopilado una lista de algunos de los errores estadísticos más comunes que aparecen en la literatura científica. Los errores tienen su origen en diseños experimentales ineficaces, análisis inapropiados y/o razonamientos erróneos. Proporcionamos asesoramiento sobre la forma en que los autores, revisores y lectores pueden identificar y resolver estos errores y esperamos evitarlos en el futuro. Todos los errores pueden ser identificados en los distintos apartados de una publicación principalmente en material y métodos, resultados o conclusiones

No disponible

[Scientific misconduct: A major threat for medical research]. / Fraude scientifique : une menace majeure pour la recherche médicale.

Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) and detrimental research practices (selective reporting of data, inappropriate citation practice, ghostwriting) are admitted respectively by 2 % and 33 % of researchers. The consequences of scientific misconduct and detrimental research practices are disastrous, both for the doctors, who are the most affected researchers in view of the number of retracted articles, and for the patients, victims of false information that may have health consequences. In order to fight against the causes (promotion of doctors and allocation of resources to clinical wards and laboratories on purely quantitative research criteria, lack of training in scientific integrity in medical studies, heterogenous quality of reviewing, legal impunity), there are legislative, academic, technological and editorial solutions, but radical and urgent cultural change is needed first.

Réplica del autor: El plagio en las publicaciones académicas / Author's reply: Plagiarism in academic publication

No disponible

Misconduct and retraction / Malas prácticas y retractación

No disponible

Some proposals on tracking scientific misconduct / Algunas propuestas para seguir las malas prácticas científicas

No disponible

Research Ethics: Researchers Consider How Best to Prevent Misconduct in Research in Malaysian Higher Learning Institutions Through Ethics Education.

The purpose of this study is to encourage and highlight discussion on how to improve the teaching of research ethics in institutions of higher education in Malaysia. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 21 academics in a research-intensive university in Malaysia, interviewees agreed on the importance of emphasizing the subject of research ethics among students, as well as academics or researchers. This study reveals that participants felt that there is an urgent need to improve the current awareness and knowledge of issues related to misconduct in research among students and academics. The results of this study indicate a need for better teaching on the subject of research ethics in order to prevent misconduct in research. Finally, it concludes with suggestions that there should be a clear definition of research misconduct, to include consequences when engaging in misconduct; a separate research ethics syllabus for pure and social sciences should be conducted; research ethics should be implemented as a core subject, and there should be an early intervention and continuous learning of research ethics, with an emphasis on ethics training.

The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.

Researchers often refer to "research integrity", "scientific integrity", "research misconduct", "scientific misconduct" and "research ethics". However, they may use some of these terms interchangeably despite conceptual distinctions. The aim of this paper is to clarify what is signified by several key terms related to research integrity, and to suggest clearer conceptual delineation between them. To accomplish this task, it provides a conceptual analysis based upon definitions and general usage of these phrases and categorization of integrity-breaching behaviours in literature and guidelines, including clarification of the different domains and agents involved. In the first part of the analysis, following some initial clarifications, I explore the distinction between internal and external rules of integrity. In the second part, I explore the distinction between integrity and lack of misconduct, before suggesting a recategorisation of different types of integrity breach. I conclude that greater clarity is needed in the debate on research integrity. Distinguishing between scientific and research integrity, reassessing the relative gravity of different misbehaviours in light of this distinction, and recognising all intentional breaches of integrity as misconduct may help to improve guidelines and education.

An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.

Research integrity and misconduct have recently risen to public attention as policy issues. Concern has arisen about divergence between this policy discourse and the language and concerns of scientists. This interview study, carried out in Denmark with a cohort of highly internationalised natural scientists, explores how researchers talk about integrity and good science. It finds, first, that these scientists were largely unaware of the Danish Code of Conduct for Responsible Conduct of Research and indifferent towards the value of such codes; second, that they presented an image of good science as nuanced and thereby as difficult to manage through abstracted, principle-based codes; and third, that they repeatedly pointed to systemic issues both as triggering misconduct and as ethical problems in and of themselves. Research integrity is framed as a part of wider moves to 'responsibilise' science; understood in these terms, resistance to codes of conduct and the representation of integrity as a problem of science as a whole can be seen as a rejection of a neoliberal individualisation of responsibility.

New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk.

Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP) and Questionable Research Practice (QRP) have been used worldwide in the classification of research misconduct. However, FFP comprises two distinct categories of misconduct: FF is extreme research misconduct that betrays truth, while P undermines trust of science community. Irreproducibility and inadequate practice of research also betray trust. Research misconduct has the potential to cause serious risk of safety in daily life. The proposed classification system is outlined as follows: Class I misconduct: Betrayal of the truth: (1) Fabrication and (2) Falsification. Class II misconduct: Betrayal of trust: (1) Plagiarism of text ; Irreproducibility; and (3) Inadequate research practice. Class III misconduct: Risk to safety of health and industrial products: (1) Risk to safety of health and (2) Risk to safety of industrial products. The proposed classification reflects deeper values of truth, trust, and risk more directly than the previous classification and elucidates issues about nature and significance of misconduct.

Nuevas perspectivas para el médico internista en la insuficiencia cardiaca / Heart failure and new perspectives for internists

No disponible

Comentario a la carta «Cuidado con los problemas de multiplicidad en ensayos clínicos» / Commentary to the letter "Beware of multiplicity problems in clinical trials"

No disponible

Sobre el fraude científico / On scientific fraud

No disponible

Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing.

We analyzed 40 cases of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism (FFP), comparing them to other types of wrongdoing in research (n=40) and medicine (n=40). Fifty-one variables were coded from an average of 29 news or investigative reports per case. Financial incentives, oversight failures, and seniority correlate significantly with more serious instances of FFP. However, most environmental variables were nearly absent from cases of FFP and none were more strongly present in cases of FFP than in other types of wrongdoing. Qualitative data suggest FFP involves thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight. We offer recommendations for education, institutional investigations, policy, and further research.

Autoria em artigos científicos: os novos desafios / Authorship for scientific papers: the new challenges

A disseminação da prática de coautoria no Brasil e na comunidade internacional tem sido acompanhada pelo aumento no registro de fraudes, manipulações e outros desvios ao definir a responsabilidade por um trabalho científico. Este artigo discorre sobre os critérios utilizados para atribuição da autoria, as razões para o crescimento dos índices de coautoria e os desafios para estabelecer a autoria em periódicos eletrônicos. Por meio de revisão bibliográfica e estudo de caso (a partir de levantamento de base de dados), aponta caminhos para evitar que "desvios de comportamento" quanto à atribuição de autoria abalem a credibilidade da ciência.

The dissemination of the practice of collaborative authorship (coauthorship) in Brazil and in the international scientific community has been accompanied by an increasing occurrence of frauds, manipulations and other deviations in the assignment of responsibility for a scientific paper. This article discusses the criteria for authorship attribution, the reasons for the growing indices of coauthorship and the challenges to determine authorship in electronic journals. Through literature review and case study (bibliographic search in scientific database), it shows ways to avoid that "misbehaviors" related to the authorship attribution affect the credibility of science.

Authorship for scientific papers: the new challenges.

The dissemination of the practice of collaborative authorship (coauthorship) in Brazil and in the international scientific community has been accompanied by an increasing occurrence of frauds, manipulations and other deviations in the assignment of responsibility for a scientific paper. This article discusses the criteria for authorship attribution, the reasons for the growing indices of coauthorship and the challenges to determine authorship in electronic journals. Through literature review and case study (bibliographic search in scientific database), it shows ways to avoid that "misbehaviors" related to the authorship attribution affect the credibility of science.