Form Of Scientific Misconduct Research Articles

Plagiarism - The dark art of scientific writing

Plagiarism is a serious form of scientific misconduct that may bring significant disrepute not only for the author in question but also to the concerned institution. Lack of appropriate knowledge on the part of the authors is the major contributor to plagiarism. Educational institutions should take lead role to educate their students and faculty members regarding scientific misconduct and its repercussions

Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: The Ethics of Quantitative Data Handling and Reporting in Applied Linguistics

AbstractScientific progress depends on the integrity of data and research findings. Intentionally distorting research data and findings constitutes scientific misconduct and introduces falsehoods into the scientific record. Unintentional distortions arising from questionable research practices (QRPs), such as unsystematically deleting outliers, pose similar obstacles to knowledge advancement. To investigate the extent of misconduct and QRPs in quantitative applied linguistics research, we surveyed 351 applied linguists who conduct quantitative research about their practices related to data handling and reporting. We found that 17% of respondents (approximately 1 in 6) admitted to 1 or more forms of scientific misconduct and that 94% admitted to 1 or more QRPs relevant to quantitative research. We also examined these practices in relation to participant background and training. Researchers admitting to misconduct tended to be earlier in their careers and had experienced publication rejection due to lack of statistically significant results. Quantitative training had generally desirable associations with QRPs. Publication rate and experience with publication rejection were associated with admission of several QRPs related to omitting statistical results. We discuss these findings and offer 5 recommendations for the field of applied linguistics to improve ethical quantitative data handling and reporting in research.

Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals - a covert form of research misconduct?

A predatory journal could be provisionally defined as one masquerading as a genuine academic publication but offer little, if any, rigorous peer review. Predatory journals or publishers place a focus on maximising financial profit, as opposed to regulated dissemination of scientific advancements. As a result, authors can often get their work published in such journals with little scrutiny on quality. Although generally warned against and discouraged, universally practiced sanctions against researchers’ submission to and publication in predatory journals are not common. Predatory publishing thus remains prevalent, particularly in places where academic success is measured by the quantity rather than quality of publication output, which feeds the journal’s business model that thrives upon significant market demand. However, such an undesirable enterprise has the potential to flood the scientific literature with unsound research that could be misleadingly perceived as authoritative. This may result in or add to the confusion of policy makers and the layperson, consequentially bringing disrepute to science and all parties involved. Here, we argue that wilfully submitting one’s manuscript to a predatory journal may constitute an active act of avoidance of rigorous peer review of one’s work. If such is the intention, it would be a questionable research practice and could be considered an, albeit covert, form of scientific misconduct. If labelled as such, and with institutional and funding rules erected to discourage the practice, predatory publishing could be effectively put out of business through diminishing the consumer demand.

Is intentional publishing in predatory journals a form of scientific misconduct?

Predatory journals are widely acknowledged as a significant problem in scholarly publishing and, more broadly, as a threat to the responsible conduct of research. Because predatory publishers base their operations on deception, it is possible for well-intentioned researchers to unwittingly end up publishing their work in predatory journals. Of a more problematic nature is the behaviour of researchers who intentionally publish in predatory journals as a way of bypassing legitimate peer-review. In such cases it is important to decide what such behaviour constitutes as a way of developing policy aimed at deterrence. The aim of this study was to answer the question of whether intentional publishing in predatory journals can be considered a form of scientific misconduct, based on the critical application of four conditions taken as being requirements for this. It is not currently possible to satisfy all four conditions that would include intentional predatory publishing as a form of scientific misconduct. However, there are grounds to argue that this behaviour satisfies the definition of a questionable research practice. Regardless of exactly where intentional predatory publishing is placed in the spectrum of unethical research behaviours, there is an urgent need for coherent institutional policy to effectively deal with it and, more broadly, naive publishing in predatory journals.

PLAGIARISM

The term known as “Plagiarism” was first coined in English around the year 1601 by the dramatist Ben Jonson, in order to characterize someone committing theft in literary. The term plagiarize is taken from the Latin word plagiary to kidnap. So a plagiarist is the one committing plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious form of scientific misconduct that results from “the failure to attribute words, ideas, or findings to their true authors” Specifically, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) defines plagiarism as “the use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source” The AIM of the present review is to provide a thorough account of plagiarism to builds awareness about all dimensions of plagiarism and the measures that a Scientific Researcher can adopt to avoid plagiarism

Research integrity: environment, experience, or ethos?

Background: Research integrity has gained attention in the general public as well as in the research community. We wanted to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and practices amongst researchers that have recently finished their PhD and compare this to their responses during their PhD fellowship. In particular, we wanted to investigate whether their attitudes are related to their experiences of their immediate research environment. Material and method: Researchers ( n = 86) awarded the PhD degree at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2016 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes, and actions related to scientific dishonesty. Seventy-two responded (83.7%). The results were compared with results among first-year doctoral students who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010–2017. Results: Overall, 13% of PhDs reported that they knew of people in their immediate research environment who had committed serious forms of scientific dishonesty. A small percentage of PhDs (1.4%) indicated that they themselves had committed such acts. About 3% of the candidates had experienced pressure to commit serious forms of dishonesty and nearly a third of respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during the course of their fellowship. Thirteen percent reported that they had experienced unethical pressure in relation to other forms of dishonesty and 11% had experienced the consequences of some form of scientific dishonesty. Eighteen percent of the respondents believed that one or more actions, which in the literature were perceived as scientific misconduct, were not wrong. We find a connection between attitudes and the perceived research integrity of their research environment. The results also show a difference between PhD students and graduated PhDs in terms of scientific dishonesty. In some areas, the PhDs’ norms are stricter, such as for the use of statistical analysis methods, while there is little change in others, such as in misconduct in order to expedite publications. Conclusion: Many PhDs knew about serious forms of scientific misconduct from the research environment in which they are trained, and some also report misconduct themselves. Some experienced pressure to serious forms of misconduct and a large proportion of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during their fellowship. Attitudes change during the PhD studies, but ambiguously. Scientific misconduct seems to be an environmental issue as much as a matter of personal integrity.

Retracted articles in surgery journals. What are surgeons doing wrong?

BackgroundRetraction of previously published scientific articles is an important mechanism to preserve the integrity of scientific work. This study analyzed retractions of previously published articles from surgery journals. MethodsWe searched for retracted articles in the 100 surgery journals with the highest SJR2 indicator grades. ResultsWe found 130 retracted articles in 49 journals (49%). Five or more retracted articles were published in 8 journals (8%). The mean time between publication and retraction was 26 months (range 1 to 158 months). The United States, China, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom accounted for more than 3 out of 4 of the retracted articles. The greatest number of retractions came from manuscripts about orthopedics and traumatology, general surgery, anesthesiology, cardiothoracic surgery, and plastic surgery. Nonsurgeons were responsible for 16% of retractions in these surgery journals. The main reasons for retraction were duplicate publication (42%), plagiarism (16%), absence of proven integrity of the study (14%), incorrect data (13%), data published without authorization (12%), violation of research ethics (11%), documented fraud (11%), request of an author(s) (5%), and unknown (3%). In 25% of the retracted articles, other publications by the same authors also had been retracted. ConclusionRetraction of published articles does not occur frequently in surgery journals. Some form of scientific misconduct was present in the majority of retractions, especially duplication of publication and plagiarism. Retractions of previously published articles were most frequent from countries with the greatest number of publications; some authors showed recidivism.

Examining publication bias-a simulation-based evaluation of statistical tests on publication bias.

BackgroundPublication bias is a form of scientific misconduct. It threatens the validity of research results and the credibility of science. Although several tests on publication bias exist, no in-depth evaluations are available that examine which test performs best for different research settings.MethodsFour tests on publication bias, Egger’s test (FAT), p-uniform, the test of excess significance (TES), as well as the caliper test, were evaluated in a Monte Carlo simulation. Two different types of publication bias and its degree (0%, 50%, 100%) were simulated. The type of publication bias was defined either as file-drawer, meaning the repeated analysis of new datasets, or p-hacking, meaning the inclusion of covariates in order to obtain a significant result. In addition, the underlying effect (β = 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5), effect heterogeneity, the number of observations in the simulated primary studies (N = 100, 500), and the number of observations for the publication bias tests (K = 100, 1,000) were varied.ResultsAll tests evaluated were able to identify publication bias both in the file-drawer and p-hacking condition. The false positive rates were, with the exception of the 15%- and 20%-caliper test, unbiased. The FAT had the largest statistical power in the file-drawer conditions, whereas under p-hacking the TES was, except under effect heterogeneity, slightly better. The CTs were, however, inferior to the other tests under effect homogeneity and had a decent statistical power only in conditions with 1,000 primary studies.DiscussionThe FAT is recommended as a test for publication bias in standard meta-analyses with no or only small effect heterogeneity. If two-sided publication bias is suspected as well as under p-hacking the TES is the first alternative to the FAT. The 5%-caliper test is recommended under conditions of effect heterogeneity and a large number of primary studies, which may be found if publication bias is examined in a discipline-wide setting when primary studies cover different research problems.

Updated AGU Ethics Policy Available for Member Comment

Proposed new language identifies harassment as a form of scientific misconduct.

Challenges in publication ethics.

‘Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers.’ TS Eliot (1888–1965) Have you ever wondered what medical journal editors do? Most editors in the medical field are unpaid and the work is part of the wider culture of service provided by so many in the medical profession. Together with the editorial board and the publisher, an editor will decide the direction of the journal. For instance, decisions are made about what sort of material should be published. One of the most common tasks, however, is the daily screening of manuscripts submitted for publication, many of which are rejected without peer review owing to poor quality, redundant material or the subject of the article being beyond the scope of the journal. After deciding which peer reviewers to send an article to, the editor must make a final decision on a manuscript, which may not necessarily concur with the advice given by the reviewers. With this comes a huge amount of personal responsibility and one to the organisation the editor represents. Take the example of George Lundberg, the editor of JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, who was fired from his position after 17 years with the alleged faux pas of rushing to publish an article to coincide with the Clinton impeachment hearings ‘to extract political leverage.’ Lundberg published research showing that 60% of college students surveyed in 1991 did not think that engaging in oral sex was classed as actually ‘having sex.’ 1 While neither the methods used in the survey nor the results were disputed, the timing of the publication at an awkward political juncture was. Extrapolating this, editors are therefore not just responsible for the content of what is published but also the impact of publications in the wider arena. Editors must also handle a great deal of correspondence, including author queries and complaints, and respond to them in a timely manner. Communication with the team, the publisher, authors and readers is a vital skill. Finally, the editor needs to deal with the journal’s ethical policy when examples of plagiarism, author disputes or other forms of misconduct are evident. Breaches of publication ethics are forms of scientific misconduct that can undermine science and challenge editors, many of whom have little formal training in this field. In this respect, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), founded in 1997 as a voluntary body, has become a central player. COPE provides a discussion forum and advice as well as guidelines for scientific editors with the aim of finding practical ways to deal with forms of misconduct. The Annals is a member of COPE and follows its code of conduct for journal editors. 2 It is a privilege that the current chair of COPE, Dr Barbour, and her colleagues have written this final article in the medical publishing series about challenges in publication ethics. I hope you have found this series useful and enjoyed reading the range of articles we have published from many experts in their fields. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor

Scientific Dishonesty: A Survey of Doctoral Students at the Major Medical Faculties in Sweden and Norway.

As we need knowledge about the prevalence of scientific dishonesty, this study investigates the knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes toward various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD students at the main medical faculties in Sweden and Norway. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to all post-graduate research students attending basic PhD courses at the medical faculties in Stockholm and Oslo during the fall 2014. The responding doctoral students reported to know about various forms of scientific dishonesty from the literature, in their department, and for some also through their own experience. Some forms of scientific misconduct were considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was a high level of willingness to report misconduct but little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct.

Publishing Integrity and Good Practices in Editing in Biomedicine

The Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts (MASA), held a scientific workshop for journal editors in biomedicine: "Publishing integrity and good practices in editing in biomedicine" on April 25, 2014 in MASA, Skopje. The meeting looked into old problems and new situations in editing and publishing, with emphasis on the situation in developing countries. This global knowledge-based society is founded on the results obtained from scientific research. The data from basic research in developed countries contribute in a quite substantial manner to the newly added economic value. One of the main reasons for underdevelopment in South Eastern Europe (SEE) is certainly a low or non-existent contribution of scientific research in the newly added economic value. This has largely to do with the perception of the political elites which simply lack the insight on the crucial importance of science in development. In the long term this leads to societies in which there are distortions in the understanding of the most basic values. Academic publishing has experienced tremendous growth: so far there are at least 50 million scientific articles. Interestingly, publishing in developing countries has experienced a rate of growth higher than in developed countries. However, this is not the case with the Balkan countries. The meeting looked at some old and some newly emerging problems in editing and publishing. First, the high cost for universities and researchers to purchase journals adversely affects both publishing and editing. In developing countries the high cost of purchasing scientific literature is an almost insurmountable problem in spite of the fact that some publishing companies offer discounted fees. Open access journals in South Eastern European (SEE) countries are hardly achievable as this also incurs costs that have to be covered in some way or other. The peer review process has the fundamental difficulty that reviewers are in the situation of a Procrustean bed, tending to accept reports which support the reviewer's concepts of thinking and, like Procrustes, cutting everything else out. Authorship is often a contentious issue, as undeserved authors appear on the list of authors. Some principles are now a norm in academic publishing. This applies to the declaration of a conflict of interest, the consent of the patient and the approval of the Ethical Board of the institution. This global informational technological revolution has, unfortunately, led to largely widespread and increasingly sophisticated deviations: plagiarism, data fabrication and data falsification as forms of scientific misconduct. Those events are now more widespread than in the past. Luckily new tools to track them are much better than previously. The race for perfect publishing integrity and for the best good practices in editing in biomedicine is on. New and old challenges will be met. The benevolent and caring society, educated professionals and an enlightened public remain essential preconditions. The wealth of nations depends on R&D and consequently on academic publishing.

Rising from Plagiarising.

Amongst the various forms of scientific misconduct, plagiarism has become increasingly prevalent in today's scientific process. Plagiarism is copying another author's ideas or words and portraying them as your own. Inclusion of another source's contents without giving credit to the source results in this unethical practice. Text derived directly from a source must always be put under quotation marks. Decreased awareness about plagiarism and what exactly constitutes it results in unintentional plagiarism. Plagiarism can be that of the ideas in which the author projects others' ideas as his own. It can also be that of the text also known as word to word plagiarism. Mosaic plagiarism is another form. Various guidelines formulated by esteemed scientific bodies such as World Association of Medical Editors, Committee on publication Ethics have provided an insight to authors, editors, publishers and peer reviewers into the practice of ethical writing. By understanding the true essence of plagiarism and following strict guidelines, it is certainly possible to avoid plagiarism. Various softwares are available to detect plagiarism. These softwares have a wide database which is scanned to reveal any kind of malpractice. If detected, it can have grave consequences causing not only retraction of the article but also loss of dignity. Failure to detect plagiarism reflects negatively on a journal. Originality is the true essence of any research or scientific paper. Any violation of this fact is an unforgivable offence. Thus, this review article attempts to cover the meaning, types, risks and ways to avoid plagiarism.

Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country

BackgroundMisconduct in research tarnishes the reputation, credibility and integrity of research institutions. Studies on research or scientific misconduct are still novel in developing countries. In this study, we report on the attitudes, perceptions and factors related to the work environment thought to be associated with research misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria - a developing country.MethodA survey of researchers attending a scientific conference was done using an adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Initial descriptive analysis of individual items using frequencies and proportions for all quantitative data was performed. Thereafter, Likert scale responses were transformed into dichotomous responses. Fisher exact test was performed for associations as appropriate. A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was accepted as significant.ResultHalf of the respondents (50.4%) were aware of a colleague who had committed misconduct, defined as “non-adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms”. Over 88% of the researchers were concerned about the perceived amount of misconduct prevalent in their institution and 96.2% believed that one or more forms of scientific misconduct had occurred in their workplace. More than half (52.7%) rated the severity of penalties for scientific misconduct in their work environment as low. Furthermore¸ the majority (56.1%) were of the view that the chance of getting caught for scientific misconduct in their work environment was low.ConclusionResearchers in Nigeria perceive that scientific misconduct is commonplace in their institutions, but are however worried about the negative effects of scientific misconduct on the credibility of scientific research. We recommend that researchers be empowered with the knowledge and virtues necessary for self-regulation that advance research integrity. Research institutions should however also step into their role of fostering a responsible research ethic and discouraging misconduct.

Classification method for detecting coercive self-citation in journals

Abstract Journal self-citations strongly affect journal evaluation indicators (such as impact factors) at the meso- and micro-levels, and therefore they are often increased artificially to inflate the evaluation indicators in journal evaluation systems. This coercive self-citation is a form of scientific misconduct that severely undermines the objective authenticity of these indicators. In this study, we developed the feature space for describing journal citation behavior and conducted feature selection by combining GA-Wrapper with RelifF. We also constructed a journal classification model using the logistic regression method to identify normal and abnormal journals. We evaluated the performance of the classification model using journals in three subject areas (BIOLOGY, MATHEMATICS and CHEMISTRY, APPLIED) during 2002–2011 as the test samples and good results were achieved in our experiments. Thus, we developed an effective method for the accurate identification of coercive self-citations.

Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others as the Modus Operandi of Mill’s Tyranny of the Prevailing Opinion

Scientific misconduct is usually assumed to be self-serving. This paper, however, proposes to distinguish between two types of scientific misconduct: 'type one scientific misconduct' is self-serving and leads to falsely positive conclusions about one's own work, while 'type two scientific misconduct' is other-harming and leads to falsely negative conclusions about someone else's work. The focus is then on the latter type, and three known issues are identified as specific forms of such scientific misconduct: biased quality assessment, smear, and officially condoning scientific misconduct. These concern the improper ways how challenges of the prevailing opinion are thwarted in the modern world. The central issue is pseudoskepticism: uttering negative conclusions about someone else's work that are downright false. It is argued that this may be an emotional response, rather than a calculated strategic action. Recommendations for educative and punitive measures are given to prevent and to deal with these three forms of scientific misconduct.

Scientific fraud in corrosion science research: A review

This article examines the issue of scientific misconduct and its implications on corrosion science research through a decade (2001–2011). An analysis is presented of an increasing body of cases in which allegations have been made and violations of legal and ethical research standards have been substantiated. The frequencies with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct, are discussed. In this review, the image of scientists as objective seekers of truth is periodically jeopardized by the discovery of a major scientific fraud. This review shows how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals, and how this can cause a waste of financial and human resources. Case examples illustrated and investigated in this review are related to corrosion science research. Recommendations toward the prevention and resolution of potential or actual instances of scientific misconduct in corrosion science research are proposed.

Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway

BackgroundThe knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities.MethodAnonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics.Results189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official.ConclusionAlthough there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.

How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts?

Self-plagiarism is a controversial issue in scientific writing and presentation of research data. Unlike plagiarism, self-plagiarism is difficult to interpret as intellectual theft under the justification that one cannot steal from oneself. However, academics are concerned, as self-plagiarized papers mislead readers, do not contribute to science, and bring undeserved credit to authors. As such, it should be considered a form of scientific misconduct. In this paper, we explain different forms of self-plagiarism in scientific writing and then present good editorial policy toward questionable material. The importance of dealing with self-plagiarism is emphasized by the recently published proposal of Text Recycling Guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Evidence of Photo Manipulation in a Delusional Parasitosis Paper

In 2004, an article in the Journal of the New York Entomological Society claimed that individuals with delusory parasitosis actually suffer from collembola infestations. The article has been critiqued for poor methodology and results that contradict all knowledge about collembolans. Less easily accounted for has been a figure in the article purporting to show a collembolan in a skin scraping. The image appears to have been altered using photo manipulation software to an unacceptable degree, and this paper demonstrates that to be the case. The altered figure represents creation of nonexistent data, a form of scientific misconduct. Whether the deception is deliberate or a product of an otherwise well-meaning author ignorant of the limits of acceptable image manipulation is unknown, but the result is peer-reviewed support for a conclusion that complicates patient treatment. In the current era of computers, even regional entomology journals must have detailed standards for what kind of images and image manipulations are acceptable for publication.