Scientific Misconduct Research Articles

Scientific disclosure and corporate misconduct

This study examines the relationship between scientific disclosure and corporate misconduct. Through an analysis of comprehensive databases containing core journal publications and documented misconduct cases, we established a significant negative correlation between scientific disclosure and corporate misconduct. This association is particularly evident in firms with publications in English-language core journals. Our findings are corroborated by a series of rigorous robustness tests, including change analyses, instrumental variable estimation, Heckman's two-stage method, and the difference-in-differences approach. Moreover, our investigation into potential mechanisms reveals several pathways through which scientific disclosure may mitigate misconduct. These mechanisms include the attraction of high-quality talent, promotion of technological innovation, establishment of a positive reputation, acquisition of R&D subsidies, and deterrence of opportunistic corporate cultures. Ultimately, our results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the role of corporate scientific disclosure in reducing misconduct and highlight the beneficial effects of corporate investment in scientific research.

Moral character and competence judgments of sexual harassers and fraudsters in academic and business contexts.

Fraud and sexual harassment have been haunting academia for years. While the scientific community proposed strategies to overcome misconduct in research, the problem of sexual harassment seems unresolved. One reason for this might be a difference between men and women in the perception of the moral character and competence of sexual harassers. Across four studies (N = 3776), in the UK and the US, men judged the sexual harasser as less immoral than women (Studies 1, 2, and 3a), even though sexual harassment was considered more harmful than fraud (Study 2). Consequently, men demanded less punishment for sexual harassers than women (Studies 1 and 2). This gender difference was not explained by moral rationalization (Study 3a). Further, a sexual harasser was judged as more competent than a fraudster but in an academic, not business, context (Studies 1 and 2). This effect was driven by the moral decoupling process, which participants used to separate competence judgments from moral judgments (Study 3b). Overall, these results suggest that in the academic context, gender interests most likely shape moral and punishment judgments towards sexual harassers, while the decoupling process allows both genders to perceive them as competent and immoral at the same time.

Over two decades of scientific misconduct in India: Retraction reasons and journal quality among inter-country and intra-country institutional collaboration

Over two decades of scientific misconduct in India: Retraction reasons and journal quality among inter-country and intra-country institutional collaboration

Perceptions of Research Misconduct Among Lecturers and Students in Vietnam: A Quantitative Investigation

Perceptions of Research Misconduct Among Lecturers and Students in Vietnam: A Quantitative Investigation

Knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practices regarding plagiarism among health researchers in Egypt and Lebanon: a multicenter questionnaire study

To enhance efforts against plagiarism, a deeper understanding of its various aspects is essential. This cross-sectional questionnaire study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, subjective norms, and self-reported plagiarism practices among health researchers in Egypt and Lebanon. A validated questionnaire was distributed to postgraduate students and faculty members across 15 universities through personal emails and health researcher-specific social media platforms. Out of 283 respondents, the mean knowledge score was 14.8 ± 3.7 out of a possible 27.0, indicating moderate knowledge of plagiarism. Attitudes toward plagiarism were moderately permissive, with an average score of 62.2 ± 10.9, out of a maximum of 90.0. Subjective norms received a moderate score of 33.6 ± 6.7, where a favorable score should be low (10–23) suggesting that participants perceive society as disapproving of plagiarism and believe its prevalence is low. The mean self-reported Plagiarism Severity Score (PSS) was 4.1 ± 3.6, reflecting a low level of self-reported plagiarism, with a maximum possible score of 18. Multivariable analysis revealed a negative correlation between subjective norms and the PSS (β = −0.194, CI [−0.196: −0.010]). This finding is counterintuitive, as one would typically expect that a lower subjective norms score (indicating stronger disapproval of plagiarism), would correlate with fewer acts of plagiarism. One possible explanation for this result is the presence of negative perceptions of organizational justice—such as feelings of being unfairly treated—which might lead to higher rates of self-reported research misconduct. We recommend that universities in the Arab Middle East region develop research ethics training programs that include responsible conduct in research. However, it is essential for academic leaders to assess and address the research integrity climate within their institutions, as organizational injustice could undermine the effectiveness of these educational efforts.

Commercialization of scientific misconduct: the challenge of paper mills

Abstract According to an estimate, there are at least 400,000 papers in the scientific literature originating from paper mills, which are for-profit companies that guarantee the publication of low-quality papers. There is evidence that such papers are accompanied by various forms of scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, image duplication, falsification, and fabrication of data. These papers are cited and included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have negative consequences for science and related disciplines. The scientific community has fragmented knowledge on paper mills, and many paper mills go undetected. Current resources of stakeholders are not sufficient to detect and prevent journals from publishing fraudulent papers. The goal of this presentation is to raise awareness of the paper mills problem and to discuss general ‘red flags’ of such papers, as well as possible measures to prevent editors and journals from publishing them. These measures may include open peer review, editor training, research on paper mills, improvement of detection methods, and united actions by stakeholders.

Integrity and accountability in academic publishing: trends and implications of paper retractions and journal delistings

Abstract In the context of academic publishing, ‘retraction’ refers to the withdrawal of a published article from the scientific record due to issues such as significant errors, plagiarism, fraudulent data, or unethical research practices. Retractions play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks retractions of scientific papers, lists more than 48,000 retractions in its database, with increasing trend over time (from 450 reported retractions in 2008 to a staggering 7327 retractions in 2023). The extent to which this indicates a heightened vigilance in identifying problematic research or an increased tendency in committing research misconduct or errors is unclear. Retractions can have lasting consequences beyond the retracted paper itself for authors, editors, publishers and the scientific community at large. However, not all retractions are the same, and self-reporting errors might come with minimal effects, suggesting a recognition of accountability and corrective actions. Delisting of a journal from a scientific database such as Scopus and Web of Science refers to the removal of the journal from the database’s index. This can happen for various reasons, including quality concerns and ethical issues. Although this phenomenon is not necessarily correlated with the quality, integrity, or reliability of individual papers published in the delisted journal, it might still have significant impacts on the work and careers of researchers. For instance, articles in delisted journals might suffer from decreased visibility or authors might not be able to use it for promotions. The curated list of sources from Scopus is publicly available and lists around 800 discountinued sources due to quality concerns, while Web of Science made the news in 2023 for the delisting of several journals for editorial reasons, including the MDPI’s giant, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

10.Q. Scientific session: Evolving landscape of scientific publishing practices: implications for public health

Abstract In the landscape of scientific publishing, questionable research practices pose significant threats to the integrity and reliability of health research. This is occurring alongside notable changes in both the quantity and quality of published work. This scientific session aims to dissect the implications of such changes and practices on public health, fostering a critical examination and encouraging proactive discourse among public health professionals, researchers, and policymakers. Meta-research can explore the nuances of publishing ethics and the idea behind this session is seeking to heighten awareness of these issues and initiate meaningful discussions among public health professionals on maintaining the integrity of scientific literature in the health domain. The session will delve into the complexities of contemporary publishing, including the proliferation of mega-journals, trends in retracted papers, journals delisted from scientific databases, and the disturbing trend of paper mills which produce fraudulent research papers. Each aspect will be scrutinized for its potential impact on the credibility of health research and the consequential risks to public health. Structured as an interactive panel discussion, the format of this session is designed to maximize engagement and foster an open exchange of ideas. Participants will be encouraged to contribute their experiences and perspectives after each of the three presentations, enriching the dialogue and enhancing collective understanding. The distinct topics presented will underscore the pervasive nature of publishing practices and malpractices across different aspects of health research, highlighting the interconnectedness of ethical challenges and their broader implications. This session will merge meta-research empirical evidence with practical repercussions, offering attendees a comprehensive perspective on how publishing ethics might be shaping public health outcomes. It aims to equip participants with the knowledge to identify dubious practices and advocate for higher standards in scientific publishing. Improving research integrity is a cornerstone for effective health policies and interventions. The subject matter is poised to stimulate debate, invite scrutiny, and inspire action. Through this discourse, the session will articulate key messages about the urgency of upholding ethical standards in publishing to safeguard health research, providing clear, actionable insights for attendees to implement in their respective fields Key messages • Unethical publishing practices endanger health research integrity and might have consequences for public health outcomes. • Acknowledging good publishing practices and combating malpractices will foster higher ethical standards in health research.

Negative performance feedback from algorithms or humans? effect of medical researchers’ algorithm aversion on scientific misconduct

Institutions are increasingly employing algorithms to provide performance feedback to individuals by tracking productivity, conducting performance appraisals, and developing improvement plans, compared to traditional human managers. However, this shift has provoked considerable debate over the effectiveness and fairness of algorithmic feedback. This study investigates the effects of negative performance feedback (NPF) on the attitudes, cognition and behavior of medical researchers, comparing NPF from algorithms versus humans. Two scenario-based experimental studies were conducted with a total sample of 660 medical researchers (algorithm group: N1 = 411; human group: N2 = 249). Study 1 analyzes the differences in scientific misconduct, moral disengagement, and algorithmic attitudes between the two sources of NPF. The findings reveal that NPF from algorithms shows higher levels of moral disengagement, scientific misconduct, and negative attitudes towards algorithms compared to NPF from humans. Study 2, grounded in trait activation theory, investigates how NPF from algorithms triggers individual’s egoism and algorithm aversion, potentially leading to moral disengagement and scientific misconduct. Results indicate that algorithm aversion triggers individuals’ egoism, and their interaction enhances moral disengagement, which in turn leads to increased scientific misconduct among researchers. This relationship is also moderated by algorithmic transparency. The study concludes that while algorithms can streamline performance evaluations, they pose significant risks to scientific misconduct of researchers if not properly designed. These findings extend our understanding of NPF by highlighting the emotional and cognitive challenges algorithms face in decision-making processes, while also underscoring the importance of balancing technological efficiency with moral considerations to promote a healthy research environment. Moreover, managerial implications include integrating human oversight in algorithmic NPF processes and enhancing transparency and fairness to mitigate negative impacts on medical researchers’ attitudes and behaviors.

Thou Shalt Not! – How the institutional afterlife of research misconduct scandals shapes research integrity training

ABSTRACT Scandals involving cases of research misconduct are often considered to be main drivers for policy initiatives and institutional changes to foster research integrity. These impacts of scandals are usually witnessed during scandals’ peak visibility. In this article we change this perspective by examining the way in which scandals continue impacting academic institutions long after the initial attention has faded. To do so, we empirically study research integrity courses at multiple Danish universities. We combine data from document analysis, participatory observations and interviews. In addition, this article makes a conceptual contribution by introducing the notion of the ‘institutional afterlife’ of a scandal. We use this notion to demonstrate how scandals can affect academic communities and practices long after their initial visibility has faded, by re-entering communities and institutions. We thereby contribute a novel approach to studying scandals and their wider implications in academia.

Unearthing the misconduct and inaccuracies in social science research: a trend analysis of retracted articles based on retraction watch database

Purpose The purpose of this study is to comprehensively analyze the research article retractions in social sciences over the past decade (2014–2023). Design/methodology/approach The study used scientometric methods to evaluate the prevalence, patterns and factors contributing to social sciences article retractions. Bibliographic data of retracted articles were collected from the Retraction Watch Database under an agreement signed with the database. Further, citations of the retracted articles were collected from Scopus and Google Scholar. The analysis encompasses performance assessment and citation-based analysis to reveal the trend of retraction and scrutinize the impact of retracted articles. Findings Over the past decade, article retractions have shown dynamic trends, with notable fluctuations in recent years. Further, investigating the time taken for article retraction reveals the urgency of addressing issues identified soon after publication. Scientific misconduct and publication-related concerns emerge as primary factors leading to retractions. Countries such as Russia, the USA, China and publishers such as Elsevier and Taylor and Francis led in the retractions of social science articles. A significant portion of retracted works had garnered academic attention prior to retraction and even after retraction. Originality/value This study can contribute to a better understanding among scholars and stakeholders of the trends and reasons for retractions of research articles in the social sciences.

Addressing fraudulent responses in quantitative and qualitative internet research: case studies from body image and appearance research

ABSTRACT The rise of online research methods has expanded the scope of research globally and has made research more inclusive. However, it has also led to a surge in fraudulent research participation, with individuals and bots infiltrating studies for personal gain or disruption. This is of particular concern in mental health studies, as fraudulent responses jeopardize interventions and care efforts. This paper addresses these challenges, presenting case studies from psychological research. The urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of fraudulent responses in both quantitative and qualitative online research is emphasized, urging the research community to confront and mitigate this issue effectively.

Value of institutional repositories and their role in ethical scholarly communication

An institutional repository (IR) serves as an open access digital repository to showcase the academic output of that institute’s faculty members, staff, and students. The IR is important for scientifically peripheral countries whose research output is poorly represented on major bibliographic databases. IRs may function on a voluntary basis, in which academics are encouraged – rather than mandated – to self-archive copies of their work, either published papers, theses, conference proceedings, or other scholarly output. IRs can thus serve as a proxy metric to highlight institutes’ productivity. However, absent a mandatory archival requirement, content in IRs may be skewed, and absent motivational objectives, only conscientious academics will practice self-archival. Conversely, mandatory archival might be met with resistance, especially if free, viable and sustainable alternatives exist, such as academic social networking sites (e.g., ResearchGate) or preprint servers. Thus, investment in the creation of an IR will need to offer greater value and benefit than these alternative platforms. Not all output by an institute’s academics may be scholarly, such as publications in predatory venues, or publication of pseudoscience, fake science or fraudulent science. IR managers, including librarians, will thus also need to faithfully represent retracted and grey literature. These latter challenges might discourage institutions from establishing an IR, or might demotivate the maintenance of existing IRs because ethical scholarly communication ultimately requires the recognition and archival of both scholarly and unscholarly output.

RESEARCH ARTICLE RETRACTION: CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES

Evil of publishing fraudulent medical research papers has become prevalent. Last year (2023) the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Retractions are typically made in cases of scientific misconduct, data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, or other serious ethical violations. Retractions are important for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific literature, as they help to correct the scientific record and prevent the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information. The publication of sham science papers has its roots in some countries where young doctors and scientists seeking promotion were required to have published scientific papers. Research article writing should not be mandatory for medical teachers working at the undergraduate level. Allowing medical teachers to pursue research on a voluntary or optional basis will contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge without compromising on quality of research and it will ultimately result in a smaller number of retractions. Pak J Physiol 2024;20(3):1?2, DOI: https://doi.org/10.69656/pjp.v20i3.1668

The Multiple Challenges of Handling Scientific Integrity in the Swiss Higher Education System.

Scientific integrity is the most important aspect that higher education institutions have to take care of, as it conveys credibility and acceptance of science to the public. Although science has a very powerful built-in self-regulation process for detecting and correcting scientific misconduct, there is a need for clear guidelines that have to be adapted on regular intervals to the rapidly changing world caused by scientific developments themselves. Outlined here are recent advances in how Switzerland increases awareness and transparency of scientific misconduct and how it handles cases of misconduct to improve the quality of science.

Legal and Operational Aspects of Compliance with Scientific Integrity.

Ensuring scientific integrity is of utmost importance in the research community, as it forms the foundation of reliable and credible scientific knowledge. Compliance with scientific integrity involves adhering to ethical principles, research standards, and legal regulations that promote transparency, honesty, and accountability. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are common forms of research misconduct that undermine the credibility and trustworthiness of scientific findings. Institutions must establish clear policies and procedures to address and prevent such misconduct, including mechanisms for reporting, investigation, and appropriate disciplinary actions. This article examines the legal and operational aspects related to compliance with scientific integrity, highlighting key considerations and best practices in this critical domain.

Fostering Responsible Conduct of Research for Early-Stage Investigators: Challenges and Opportunities.

The rise of academic misconduct poses significant challenges to the integrity and credibility of scholarly research. Early-stage investigators (ESIs), particularly those representing marginalized groups, face unique pressures in navigating the "publish or perish" paradigm while establishing their careers. This commentary articulates strategies for cultivating research environments conducive to the responsible conduct of research (RCR) for ESIs. By establishing shared values, planning research meticulously, conducting research collaboratively, and reporting findings transparently, ESIs can foster a culture of prevention and accountability in research. Ultimately, navigating beyond traditional methodologies to support RCR necessitates a fundamental reimagining of academic culture, reconceptualizing productivity to prioritize quality over quantity, and to encompass "invisible" work often shouldered by investigators with marginalized identities. Addressing scientific misconduct challenges requires a whole-system approach, encompassing individual leadership, policy changes, and institutional accountability. By implementing concrete strategies and systemic reforms, academia can reaffirm its commitment to responsible research conduct and safeguard the integrity of scholarly endeavors.

Knowledge and Practices Related to Research Misconduct among Healthcare Researchers in India: Cross-Sectional Study

ABSTRACT Introduction: Practices known to harm the integrity of scientific and medical research during planning, conduct, documentation, and reporting are termed as research misconduct. It is an unfortunate, prevalent reality of the research world. In the present study, we tried to assess the knowledge about research misconduct, its determinants, observed practices of research misconduct among healthcare practitioners, level of satisfaction with the order of authorship in one’s published manuscript, and their views for action to be taken against those involved in research misconduct in our institution. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited eligible participants (Faculty Members and Senior Residents of Medical, Dental, and Nursing Professionals) through one-to-one interviews and web-based platforms. Data analysis was conducted by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 23(SPSS-23). Result: Of the 356 participants, around 60% had complete knowledge about research misconduct, and 74.2% had observed research misconduct in their workplace at some point in time. There was no association between correct knowledge about research misconduct and the type of healthcare researchers, awareness of the International Committee of Journal of Medical Ethics (ICJME), and training on good clinical practices. 54.8% of the participants considered those involved in research misconduct should not be permitted to be co-guide and guide of students. Conclusion: Training of healthcare researchers on publication ethics and good clinical practice guidelines seems to improve knowledge about research misconduct. Further, stringent action should be taken against those who conduct research misconduct.

Narratives and opinion polarization: a survey experiment

We explore the impact of narratives on beliefs and policy opinions through a survey experiment that exposes US subjects to two media-based explanations of the causes of COVID-19. The Lab Narrative ascribes the pandemic to human error and scientific misconduct in a Chinese lab, and the Nature Narrative describes the natural causes of the virus. First, we find that both narratives influence individual beliefs about COVID-19 origins. More precisely, individual beliefs tend to be swayed in the direction of the version of the facts to which one is more exposed generating a potential source of polarization by exposure. Second, only the Nature Narrative unidirectionally affects policy opinions by increasing people’s preferences toward climate protection and trust in science, therefore representing a channel for one-sided polarization by exposure. Finally, we also explore the existence of heterogeneous effects of our narratives, finding that the Lab Narrative leads to opinion polarization between Republican- and Democratic-leaning states on climate change and foreign trade. This indicates the existence of an additional channel that can lead policy opinions to diverge, which we denote polarization by social context.

Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country (Preprint)

Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country (Preprint)