Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct.

CONTEXT: This narrative review article explores research integrity and the implications of scholarly work in medical education. The paper describes how the current landscape of medical education emphasizes research and scholarly activity for medical students, resident physicians, and faculty physician educators. There is a gap in the existing literature that fully explores research integrity, the challenges surrounding the significant pressure to perform scholarly activity, and the potential for ethical lapses by those involved in medical education. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review article are to provide a background on authorship and publication safeguards, outline common types of research misconduct, describe the implications of publication in medical education, discuss the consequences of ethical breaches, and outline possible solutions to promote research integrity in academic medicine. METHODS: To complete this narrative review, the authors explored the current literature utilizing multiple databases beginning in June of 2021, and they completed the literature review in January of 2023. To capture the wide scope of the review, numerous searches were performed. A number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were utilized to identify relevant articles. The MeSH terms included "scientific misconduct," "research misconduct," "authorship," "plagiarism," "biomedical research/ethics," "faculty, medical," "fellowships and scholarships," and "internship and residency." Additional references were accessed to include medical school and residency accreditation standards, residency match statistics, regulatory guidelines, and standard definitions. RESULTS: Within the realm of academic medicine, research misconduct and misrepresentation continue to occur without clear solutions. There is a wide range of severity in breaches of research integrity, ranging from minor infractions to fraud. Throughout the medical education system in the United States, there is pressure to publish research and scholarly work. Higher rates of publications are associated with a successful residency match for students and academic promotion for faculty physicians. For those who participate in research misconduct, there is a multitude of potential adverse consequences. Potential solutions to ensure research integrity exist but are not without barriers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure in the world of academic medicine to publish contributes to the potential for research misconduct and authorship misrepresentation. Lapses in research integrity can result in a wide range of potentially adverse consequences for the offender, their institution, the scientific community, and the public. If adopted, universal research integrity policies and procedures could make major strides in eliminating research misconduct in the realm of academic medicine.

Inequitable Conduct and Invalidation of Patents Related to Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Products.

This study examines the frequency of drug patent invalidations based on inequitable conduct.

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)

Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.

Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the "publish or perish" incentive system promotes research integrity.

Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors.

BACKGROUND: Plagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties. METHODS: This online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries. RESULTS: Among 211 respondents (mean age 40 years; M:F, 0.85:1), 26 were scholarly journal editors and 70 were reviewers with a large representation from India (50, 24%), Turkey (28, 13%), Kazakhstan (25, 12%) and Ukraine (24, 11%). Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents. Paraphragiarism was the most commonly encountered type of plagiarism (145, 69%). Students (150, 71%), non-Anglophone researchers with poor English writing skills (117, 55%), and agents of commercial editing agencies (126, 60%) were thought to be prone to plagiarize. There was a significant disagreement on the legitimacy of text copying in scholarly articles, permitted plagiarism limit, and plagiarized text in methods section. More than half (165, 78%) recommended specifically designed courses for plagiarism detection and prevention, and 94.7% (200) thought that social media platforms may be deployed to educate and notify about plagiarism. CONCLUSION: Great variation exists in the understanding of plagiarism, potentially contributing to unethical publications and even retractions. Bridging the knowledge gap by arranging topical education and widely employing advanced anti-plagiarism software address this unmet need.

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.

[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.

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.

SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories.

The emergence of a novel human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has engaged considerable awareness and attention around the world. The associated disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has now involved virtually all 200 countries. The total number of confirmed cases has been much more than in the two previous outbreaks of human coronaviruses, that is, SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. In line with the outbreak escalation, false information about SARS-CoV-2 and its associated disease disseminated globally, particularly through online and social media. Believers in conspiracy theories promote misinformation that the virus is not contagious, is the result of laboratory manipulation or is created to gain profit by distributing new vaccines. The most dangerous effect of this widely disseminated misinformation is it will negatively influence the attitudes and behaviours for preventive measures to contain the outbreak. In this review, I discuss common conspiracy theories associated with SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 and consider how we can address and counterbalance these issues based on scientific information and studies.

Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors.

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.