Falsification Of Data Research Articles

Data falsification should be a criminal offence

Dear Sir, I read with interest the two articles on academic fraud in the August 2012 issue of Bone & Joint360 .1,2 They are well-written, thought-provoking and a must read for researchers and clinicians. Written by two highly respected medical professionals, they have a slightly different perspective and emphasis. Marcovitch’s article focuses more on fraud, the falsification of data to support invalid conclusions, and gives examples of this in the literature. To some degree he also talks about plagiarism but the article by Rajasekaran puts more of an emphasis on this and in particular about what he feels is the underlying cause (i.e. publish to flourish) of this problem. Cheating in publishing should be divided into fraud and plagiarism and not grouped together. Both are forms of cheating with some overlap …

Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria.

There is a dearth of information on the prevalence of scientific misconduct from Nigeria. This study aimed at determining the prevalence of scientific misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria. Factors associated with the prevalence were ascertained. A descriptive study of researchers who attended a scientific conference in 2010 was conducted using the adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Ninety-one researchers (68.9%) admitted having committed at least one of the eight listed forms of scientific misconduct. Disagreement about authorship was the most common form of misconduct committed (36.4%) while plagiarism was the least (9.2%). About 42% of researchers had committed falsification of data or plagiarism. Analysis of specific acts of misconduct showed that committing plagiarism was inversely associated with years in research (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02); falsifying data was related to perceived low effectiveness of the institution's rules and procedures for reducing scientific misconduct (X(2) = 6.44, p-value = 0.01); and succumbing to pressure from study sponsor to engage in unethical practice was related to sex of researcher (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02). The emergent data from this study is a cause for serious concern and calls for prompt intervention. The best response to reducing scientific misconduct will proceed from measures that contain both elements of prevention and enforcement. Training on research ethics has to be integrated into the curriculum of undergraduate and postgraduate students while provision should be made for in-service training of researchers. Penalties against acts of scientific misconduct should be enforced at institutional and national levels.

Ethical Academic Judgments and Behaviors: Applying a Multidimensional Ethics Scale to Measure the Ethical Academic Behavior of Graduate Students

Using Reidenbach and Robin's Multidimensional Ethics Scale, this study investigated the relationships between background variables and students' ethical evaluations, judgments, and behavioral intentions using 3 scenarios involving dilemmas related to academic dishonesty. The sample included 436 master's students and 142 doctoral students. The study found that the participants used a combination of ethical philosophies to make ethical decisions. The respondents judged improper citations more harshly than acts of inappropriate authorship or the falsification of data. The doctoral students generally considered behaviors related to plagiarism and falsification to be more unethical than the master's students did, though no gender differences were found.

Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Public Health, Epidemiological and Clinical Research.

The ethics and scientific integrity of biomedical and public health research requires that researchers behave in appropriate ways. However, this requires more than following of published research guidelines that seek to prevent scientific misconduct relating to serious deviations from widely accepted scientific norms for proposing, conducting, and reporting research (e.g., fabrication or falsification of research data or failures to report potential conflicts of interest). In this paper we argue for a broader account of scientific integrity, one consistent with that defended by the United States Institute of Medicine, involving a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions as a researcher and to practices consistent with the responsible conduct of research and protection of the research participants. Maintaining high standards of ethical and scientific integrity helps to maintain public trust in the research enterprise. An increasing number of authors have pointed to the importance of mentoring and education in relation to the responsible conduct of science in preventing transgressions of scientific integrity. Just like in clinical research and biomedicine, epidemiologists and other public health researchers have the responsibility to exhibit and foster the very highest standards of scientific integrity.

Commitment to Intellectual Honesty and Personal Responsibility

Scientific integrity represents the core of the research enterprise and the sharing of scientific information. It is this commitment to intellectual honesty and to responsible conduct and reporting of research that propels the successful advancement of knowledge. This afternoon I received a notification from officials of the University of Connecticut indicating that their investigation on research misconduct has found Antioxidants and Redox Signaling (ARS) Co-editor Professor Dipak K. Das guilty of fabrication and falsification of data. To demonstrate its commitment to protecting the integrity of science, ARS has terminated Dr. Das's position as Co-editor effective today. The report on findings of the investigation has identified that two articles published in ARS by the Das laboratory suffer from fabricated data. Both articles have been retracted effective today. Formal retraction notices will be issued on the Publisher's website (www.liebertonline.com/ars) and published in the Journal imminently. These actions reinforce the high standards necessary to advance the science that underpins the value that ARS brings to its community. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 16, 635.

Retractions

Due to the recent findings of an investigation led by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, and as a direct result of the falsification and manipulation of data in the articles listed below, Antioxidants and Redox Signaling (ARS) is officially retracting the following published papers, authored by Dipak K. Das. 1. Malik G, Gorbounov N, Das S, Gurusamy N, Otani H, Maulik N, Goswami S, Das DK. Ischemic preconditioning triggers nuclear translocation of thioredoxin and its interaction with Ref-1 potentiating a survival signal through the PI-3-kinase-Akt pathway. Antioxid Redox Signal 8:2101-2109, 2006. 2. Muinck ED, Nagy N, Tirziu D, Murakami M, Gurusamy N, Goswami SK, Ghatpande S, Engelman RM, Simons M, Das DK. Protection against myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury by the angiogenic Masterswitch protein PR 39 gene therapy: the roles of HIF1alpha stabilization and FGFR1 signaling. Antioxid Redox Signal 9:437-445, 2007. These actions reinforce the high standards to which ARS is committed.

Newsmakers

This week's Newsmakers are Mark Ferguson, who has been named as the next director general of Science Foundation Ireland, and Dipak Das, head of the cardiovascular research center at the University of Connecticut Health Center, who has been found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data.

U-Healthcare Service Authentication Protocol based on RFID Technology

Now a days, U-healthcare comes into the spotlight as a new business model which combines RFID technology with medical service in the well-being era and IT popularization. U-healthcare service needs a method that can deals with hand-writing, overlap data, forgery and falsification of data, difference between information version that happen in medical process because of graft between RFID technology and u-healthcare. This paper proposes RFID based user certification protocol to protect user's privacy who gets medical service through U-healthcare. In the protocol, secret information of patient does the XOR with the secret key that is created in the hospital to reconsider the stability of security system of U-healthcare and user's data forgery and falsification and privacy and then saves it in the secret key field of patient in DB table. Also, it informs the case of illegal access to certification server and make it approved the access of u-healthcare service by differentiating whether u-healthcare is illegal or not.

The perils of copy and paste: Plagiarism in scientific publishing

INTRODUCTION Although research misconduct in all its forms can damage the integrity and prestige of the scientific community, it has often not been taken as seriously as it should be. However, leaders in science and publishing are beginning to regard misconduct as the threat that it really is. In an editorial in Nature, Macilwain explains that scientists' instinctive defensiveness has produced general denial that misconduct constitutes a serious but also that these attitudes are changing and misconduct is being addressed more often and with less leniency [1]. Research misconduct should be a paramount concern in the scientific publishing industry. The goal of any scientific or technical journal is to contribute to the advancement of the literature base of its target subject, and publishing fraudulent, unethical, or incorrect research damages not only the reputations of the journal and the authors but also the research field itself. Research misconduct can range from unethical treatment of research subjects to fabrication and falsification of data to plagiarism [2]. It is therefore the responsibility of every scientific journal to monitor all material to be published for research misconduct of all kinds, a responsibility that JRRD takes seriously. As pointed out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), journal editors are accountable for everything published in their journals, such that they should attempt to maintain the integrity of the academic record and uphold ethical standards [3]. Despite the efforts of the publishing community, research misconduct is on the rise. In the past 30 years, retractions in scientific journals have increased 10-fold [4]. Fanelli reports that nearly 34 percent of scientists and doctors admitted to employing questionable research practices [5]. This increase in misconduct is due largely to an unprecedented growth in the number of researchers and scientific publishers worldwide. As research efforts rise in parts of the world that did not previously have as large of a stake in the scientific community, such as China and India, the volume of published literature continues to increase. The number of journal articles published annually jumped from 1.09 million in 2002 to 1.94 million in 2010 [6]. JRRD has seen a drastic increase in our article submissions, leading to both more articles per issue and a higher rejection rate. The growth of the Internet has also led to an increase in the number of publication venues. With this increase in scholarship and publication outlets comes a pressure to publish, which can sometimes lead to misconduct. The widespread use of computers and the Internet has also led to an increase in misconduct, specifically plagiarism. Most published material is now available at the click of a mouse over the Internet, and the Copy and Paste functions allow broad swathes of text to be duplicated with very little effort by the copier. When it is so easy to find and duplicate previously published materials, we must be especially vigilant to root out plagiarism in all its forms. The publishing world has been taking notice of widespread plagiarism lately, and prominent publications and scholars are not immune to the problem. There have been recent plagiarism allegations against figures such as a well-known writer and journalist Jonah Lehrer [7], writer and television host Fareed Zakaria [8], and even a member of the Romanian government [9]. This renewed attention to possible plagiarism has included concerns about self-plagiarism, highlighted by the discovery that a well-known chemist had published multiple papers containing nearly identical text [10]. While plagiarism in scientific and technical writing is indeed a growing problem, we also have new tools and an increasing focus within the publishing industry with which to fight back. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS Plagiarism As stated in the JRRD Editorial Policies, plagiarism occurs when authors use material(s) that are not their original work without documentation (accurately citing the source, using quotation marks if necessary, and obtaining appropriate permissions) and extends to text, figures, and other unique materials. …

Reporting of article retractions in bibliographic databases and online journals.

Retraction of journal papers containing falsified data plays a central role in “correcting” the scientific record. Of 395 articles retracted between 1982 and 2002, Nath et al. classified 62% as retracted as a result of mistake, 27% because of deliberate falsification or fabrication of data, and 11% without a clear reason for retraction [1]. There is evidence that retracted papers continue to be cited without reference to the retraction: Budd et al. found that 235 retracted articles were cited 2,034 times after retraction notices. Examination of 299 of these citations showed that only 19 referred to the retraction [2]. Similarly, Neale et al.'s analysis of 102 articles from PubMed showed that many of these papers were subsequently cited by other researchers who were unaware that the papers had been affected by scientific misconduct [3]. Limitations in the processes for recording retractions have been noted elsewhere, and the responsibilities of authors, journal editors, and research institutions have been highlighted [4, 5]. Following the Poehlman case in 2005, where ten articles based on fabricated data by that author were retracted, Sox and Rennie identified several opportunities for publishers to prevent citation of retracted papers [5]. These included journal editors checking the reference lists of submitted manuscripts on the National Library of Medicine website, retraction notices being linked to retracted articles on journal websites, retraction notices being prominently displayed in electronic journals, and free access to the full text of retraction notices being facilitated. While undertaking a systematic review on post-surgery analgesia [6], the authors realized that several of the papers identified for possible inclusion were by Scott S. Reuben, who was at that point being investigated for producing papers based on falsified data [7]. Twenty-one papers or abstracts authored by Reuben were under question at that time, and there was considerable publicity, while official retractions began to be made by journals. Although the presence of this publicity made it easy to weed out those articles from the systematic review, the situation offered an opportunity to conduct a case study to investigate whether databases and journals record notices of article retractions in a way that ensures they can be easily identified, even in the absence of such public discussion.

Cuban Health Care: Consider the Source

I am writing to protest the egregious misrepresentation of the Cuban health care system presented by P. K. Drain and M. Barry in their Policy Forum, “Fifty years of U.S. embargo: Cuba's health outcomes and lessons” (30 April, p. [572][1]). The most serious flaw in the Policy Forum is its unquestioning faith in the legitimacy of Cuban government health data. By basing their conclusions solely on official government sources, the authors imply that the health sector in Cuba can be analyzed apart from the rest of the government apparatus. As a result, the health sector is portrayed as an oasis of humanitarianism and egalitarianism that is completely unaffected by the surrounding problems of authoritarianism, repression of information, and grave human rights abuses that have characterized the Castro regime for most of its 50-year history. A small but compelling array of recent publications ([ 1 ][2]–[ 5 ][3]) in the social sciences, as well as numerous informal reports ([ 6 ][4]–[ 10 ][5]) by dissident journalists and physicians, have successfully challenged these assumptions by documenting the myriad ways Cuba's systemic problems have become embedded in the organization and delivery of health care. The results of these inquiries are decidedly unflattering to the Cuban government and reveal a health system rife with corruption, authoritarianism, inequality, falsification of data, and human rights abuses. Any scholarly attempt to assess the true state of health conditions in Cuba, or the health impact of the U.S. trade embargo, should begin with a discussion of the way these systemic problems distort empirical research. 1. [↵][6] 1. O. E. Chepe , Cuba: Revolucion o Involucion? (Editorial Aduana Vieja, Valencia, Spain, 2007). 2. 1. E. Kath , Social Relations and the Cuban Health Miracle (Transaction Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 2010). 3. 1. K. Hirschfeld , Health, Politics, and Revolution in Cuba Since 1898 (Transaction Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 2007). 4. 1. K. Hirschfeld , Cuban Affairs 2, 1 (2007). [OpenUrl][7] 5. [↵][8] 1. A. Lago , Can. J. Psychiatry 39, 129 (1994). [OpenUrl][9][PubMed][10][Web of Science][11] 6. [↵][12] 1. M. A. O'Grady , “Cuban doctor pays a high price for truth,” Wall Street Journal, 31 March 2006. 7. Video testimony from Darsi Ferrer, dissident physician ([www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgXP6AFo7lc][13]), in the documentary “Cuba y los Elefantes” (Instituto Politico para la Libertad, Lima, Peru, 2009). 8. CNN story on Darsi Ferrer [in Spanish]; [www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0U7u6sTd4][14]. 9. 1. D. Mendoza, 2. I. Fuentes , Dengue! (Center for a Free Cuba, Washington, DC, 2001). 10. [↵][15] Generation Y blog ([www.desdecuba.com/generationy][16]). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1189680 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-5 [4]: #ref-6 [5]: #ref-10 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bpsychiatry.%2B%2BRevue%2Bcanadienne%2Bde%2Bpsychiatrie%26rft.stitle%253DCan%2BJ%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DHenderson%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D39%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D129%26rft.epage%253D129%26rft.atitle%253DTeaching%2Bpsychiatry%2Bin%2BCuba.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F8149321%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=8149321&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F329%2F5992%2F627.2.atom [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994NB87000020&link_type=ISI [12]: #xref-ref-6-1 View reference 6 in text [13]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgXP6AFo7lc [14]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0U7u6sTd4 [15]: #xref-ref-10-1 View reference 10 in text [16]: http://www.desdecuba.com/generationy

New Information That People in High Places Do Not Want Us to Know About Autism

Until the 1930s, the term “autism” was not mentioned in the literature. Until then, vaccination programs did not exist in the United States. Leo Kanner applied the term “early infantile autism,” detailing 11 cases of children born in 1931. He thought these children seemed like they inhabited a world of one, hence the term “autism,” originally derived from Bleuler (1911). Kanner furnished the following description: “aloneness that, whenever possible, disregards, ignores, shuts out anything that comes to the child from the outside.” He initially claimed parents of children with autism were often cold and humorless perfectionists (Kanner, 1943), considering them to be “emotional refrigerators,” a characterization that haunted him, one he deeply regretted and ultimately recanted. There has been a significant rise in autism. Some of this is probably due to looser definitions, widened to include a broad “spectrum” of behaviors. However, even when I tightened up the criteria for inclusion, I still was able to observe a rather sizeable—in fact, dramatic and alarming—increment. Curious about why this might be so, I began to investigate. I discovered a great deal of secrecy, nontransparency, obstructionism, mystification, and even falsification of data in which people in high places were engaged. This article is intended to disclose facts heretofore obscured, hidden, or reassembled in fanciful ways and to raise questions and make scientific statements and social commentary on this highly important issue. Possible sources of toxicity are listed.

Truth or Consequences?

Truth or Consequences?

Building trust by eliminating plagiarism: White paper from the ad hoc committee on plagiarism

‘‘plagiarize:” ‘‘to steal and pass off as one’s own (the ideas or words of another) : use (a created production) without crediting the source. ‘‘: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.” (Merriam Webster Incorporated., 1993). ‘‘plagiarism: ‘‘1. The action or practice of taking someone else’s work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one’s own; literary theft” (Oxford University Press., 2009a). ‘‘Plagiarism: Researchers do not claim the words and ideas of another as their own; they give credit where credit is due (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.11, Plagiarism)” (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 15). ‘‘Reporting must be accurate and without falsification or fabrication of data or results; reflect the work of the authors with appropriate attribution to others; be free of any plagiarism or misappropriation of the writing or ideas of others; and be sufficiently accessible to be subject to verification, replication, or further analysis” (American Educational Research Association, 2006, p. 14). ‘‘Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission” (Elsevier., 2007, p. 1).

Perception of college of education lecturers about technical education research and evaluation in Nigeria

The study was conducted to ascertain the perception of Federal College of Education Technical lecturers towards technical education research in South-South geo-political zone of Nigeria. In pursuance of this purpose, four research questions were formulated and one hypothesis tested. The population comprised of 70 lecturers of Federal Colleges of Education (Technical) in Asaba, Umunze and Omoku. The entire population was used for the study. No sampling was done because of the fewness of the population. The design used was a survey. The instrument used was the questionnaire. On the whole 57 items were drawn using the likert scale format. The instrument was considered valid by experts with the reliability coefficient of 0.89 using Cronbach alpha. Simple percentage and t-test were used to analyse the data. The study revealed that: Government’s inactive role in supporting and promoting research activities in colleges of education (technical) caused low morale of lecturers towards research; A lot of constraints such as poor attitude to research, falsification of research data, among others are the challenges of technical education research. The study recommends among others that: About 10 percent of the education tax fund should be voted to research; Government should improve its communication network.

Integrity in Authorship and Publication

In recent years, seemingly frequent examples of problems related to the integrity of authorship and publication have plagued the medical literature. These issues have been primarily related to the appropriateness of authorship (including ghostwriting and so-called “guest authorship” of manuscripts), duplicate publication of articles, plagiarism, scientific miscon duct in the form of falsification of data, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest. Although authorship and publication issues arise relatively rarely at the CJHP , the Journal has, on occasion, been faced with some of these concerns. Two issues that have received attention recently in the scientific literature and even in the lay press are the ghostwriting and guest authorship of scientific articles. Ghostwriting has been defined as “the failure to designate an individual (as an author) who has made a substantial contribution to the research or writing of a manuscript.” 1 Particular attention was drawn to this practice in a review of industry documents obtained during litigation related to rofecoxib, 1 in which it was discovered that numerous review articles had been prepared by people who were not recognized as authors or otherwise acknowledged. Instead, the authorship of these papers was attributed to investigators with academic affiliations. This review also revealed that many clinical trial manuscripts were written primarily by industry employees, with first authorship on each paper being attributed to an investigator with an aca demic affiliation. 1

Faculty Ethics: Ideal Principles with Practical Applications

Ethics in higher education is the subject of intense public attention, with considerable focus on faculty roles and responsibilities. Media reports and scholarly research have documented egregious misconduct that includes plagiarism, falsification of data, illicit teacher-student relationships, and grading bias. These accounts of wrongdoing often portray faculty ethicality as only a legal issue of obeying rules and regulations, especially in the teaching and research roles. My discussion challenges this narrow perspective and argues that characterizations of faculty ethicality should take into account broader expectations for professionalism such as collegiality, respect, and freedom of inquiry. First, I review the general principles of faculty ethics developed by the American Association of University Professors, as well as professional codes of ethics in specific professional fields. Second, I juxtapose the experiences of women and minority faculty members in relation to these general codes of ethics. This section examines three issues that particularly affect women and minority faculty experiences of ethicality: "chilly and alienating" academic climates, "cultural taxation" of minority identity, and the snare of conventional reward systems. Third, I suggest practical strategies to reconcile faculty practice with codes of ethics. My challenge is to the faculty as a community of practice to engage professional ethics as social and political events, not just legal and moral failures.

Falsification of population census data in a heterogeneous Nigerian state: The fourth republic example

This paper examines critically the controversy surrounding the recently concluded population census in Nigeria which came up between March 21 and 25, 2006. While population census is a deliberate attempt to enumerate people within a delimited territory at a specific time so as to determine their number, their contribution over the land area and their basic socio-demographic and economic characteristics, many of such exercises have been juggled especially in Nigeria. Many infallible proofs for several scores of years have been showing that census taking in Nigeria has been surrounded by deliberate falsehood with the intents and purposes to derive one benefit or the other from the government. The paper argues that the Nigeria’s 2006 population census was no way different from the past falsified ones in Nigeria. The paper concludes that for an accurate population census in Nigeria, population census should not be used for allocation of governmental benefits. Key words: Census, population, data.

Report from the Working Group of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan for the investigation of fraud in research papers

Report from the Working Group of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan for the investigation of fraud in research papers

Comment éviter la non-conformité de la recherche biomédicale ? Recommandations aux chirurgiens

Research misconduct is defined by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh as any behaviour by a researcher, whether intentional or not, that fails to scrupulously respect high scientific and ethical standards. Various types of research misconduct include fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, problematic data presentation or analysis, failure to obtain ethical approval by a research ethics committee or to obtain the subject's informed consent, inappropriate claims of authorship, duplicated publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. These can result in patient injury, deterioration of the patient-physician relationship, loss of public trust in biomedical research, as well as pollution/degradation of the medical literature. Surgical research malfeasance has been underreported, and no practical guidelines for good research and publication have appeared to date in French surgical journals. In an attempt to uphold the scientific integrity of our profession, we discuss research misconduct and emphasise preventive measures and considerations for surgeons.