Scientific Misconduct Research Articles

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.

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.

Research and publication at crossroads

Writing and publishing scientific and rigorous work needs a high level of integrity and adherence to ethical guidelines. Several publications have been rejected by authentic journals as a result of not adhering to a deontological standpoint. This laxity has posed deadly repercussions to the beholder including ruining its institutional image in academic scholarship. Notwithstanding, numerous writers are acquainted with the consequences of not observing ethical standards in research and publication, yet in trying to put up their pieces of work get caught in the same quandary. Anchored on a thematically oriented review of literature, it was imperative to try to explain the key ethical misconduct bases in research and publication. To fulfil this quest many journal articles were analysed. It was found that numerous aspects form the basis for misconduct in research and publication including; the pressure to ‘publish or perish’, the limitation of mentorship and guidance programs, knowledge on research and publication, promotion and academic advancement, competition among colleagues, workload pressure, financial motives, pressure from individual morality, and the challenge of research culture. Consequently, it is imperative to note that to publish a scholarly piece of work, adhering to ethical standards is non-negotiable.

The trend and ripple effects of retractions in primary health care: A bibliometric analysis.

In primary health care, the dissemination of retracted publications through literature reviews, guidelines, and recommendations can have a significant and lasting impact. Despite this potential threat, the retraction consequences and patterns in this domain have not been extensively explored. Therefore, this study investigates the characteristics and ripple effects of retracted papers in primary health care literature. Retracted publications indexed in PubMed from 1984 to 2022 in primary health care journals underwent bibliometric analysis. The dataset included detailed publication information, from which we derived annual retraction rates and examined trends by journal, authorship, and geographic origin. We further evaluated the extent of influence exerted by retracted papers through postretraction citation analysis. In 44 primary health care journals, 13 articles were retracted over the study period, representing a retraction rate of 0.01%-notably lower than the aggregate rate for all PubMed journals. Despite this, we observed a recent surge in retraction frequency, especially in the last decade. The median interval to retraction was 15 months, with scientific misconduct, specifically fabrication, and plagiarism, as the predominant reasons. After retraction, the articles continued to exert considerable influence, averaging 25 citations per article with a 78.1% postretraction citation prevalence. Retractions resulting from scientific misconduct in primary health care are increasing, with a substantial portion of such work continuing to be cited. This trend underscores the urgent need to improve research ethics and develop mechanisms that help primary care physicians discern reliable information, thereby reducing the reliance on compromised literature.

The PubPeer conundrum: Administrative challenges in research misconduct proceedings.

The founders of PubPeer envisioned their website as an online form of a "journal club" that would facilitate post-publication peer review. Recently, PubPeer comments have led to a significant number of research misconduct proceedings - a development that could not have been anticipated when the current federal research misconduct regulations were developed two decades ago. Yet the number, frequency, and velocity of PubPeer comments identifying data integrity concerns, and institutional and government practices that treat all such comments as potential research misconduct allegations, have overwhelmed institutions and threaten to divert attention and resources away from other research integrity initiatives. Recent, high profile research misconduct cases accentuate the increasing public interest in research integrity and make it inevitable that the use of platforms such as PubPeer to challenge research findings will intensify. This article examines the origins of PubPeer and its central role in the modern era of online-based scouring of scientific publications for potential problems and outlines the challenges that institutions must manage in addressing issues identified on PubPeer. In conclusion, we discuss some potential enhancements to the investigatory process specified under federal regulations that could, if implemented, allow institutions to manage some of these challenges more efficiently.

Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.

The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed. Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures. First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures. Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry.

CrossMark Policy

Applying the CrossMark icon is a commitment by Iranian Journal of Orthodontics (IJO) to maintain the content published and alert readers to changes if and when they occur. What is CrossMark? CrossMark, a multi-publisher initiative from CrossRef, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document. We recognize the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attach the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will inform the reader of the current status of a document also provide additional publication record information about the document. Permanency of Content All content published in IJO is permanently published, regardless of the outcome of the peer review that follows after publication. IJO participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the CrossMark policies, IJO is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur. Clicking on the CrossMark logo, at the top of each IJO article, will give you the current status of the article and its last updates and direct you to the latest published version. In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, we will apply the COPE Policies on Retraction Guidelines when published content needs to be corrected or retracted; these policies take into account current best practice in the scholarly publishing. Based on the COPE guideline, IJO editors consider retracting a publication if: There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabri­cation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error); The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication); It constitutes plagiarism; It reports unethical research. IJO editors consider issuing an expression of concern if: They receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.

Training, networking, and support infrastructure for ombudspersons for good research practice: A survey of the status quo in the Berlin research area

ABSTRACT Recent developments in the German academic landscape have seen a shifting approach to promoting research integrity. In 2019, the German Research Foundation (DFG) incentivized all research and higher education institutions to appoint ombudspersons who advise members of their institution in matters of good research practice or suspected research misconduct. These ombudspersons for good research practice, usually professors who act in this function on a voluntary basis, need institutional support to be prepared for and fulfill their diverse duties. The Ombuds-Modelle@BUA (2020) and OBUA – Ombudswesen@BUA (2021–2023) projects worked to advance the professionalization of ombudspersons in the Berlin research area by first investigating the current situation and then offering a meta-level of support in training, networking, and knowledge exchange. Furthermore, the OBUA project engaged in meta-research, investigating the status quo of local ombuds systems and demands for support. The project findings, discussed in this contribution, show that the professionalization of local ombuds systems has been evolving in past years, especially in the areas of training and networking. Infrastructural support measures, however, remain largely underdeveloped.

Treat me fairly now or I will commit misconduct later: integrating general strain and procedural (in)justice in graduate education

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to integrate general strain theory and procedural justice in the context of research misconduct in university settings. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on media accounts and past research, the authors present data on the financial costs of research misconduct to universities and identify graduate school processes as a possible source of strain may lead to misconduct. Relevant research on procedural justice in organizational settings is also examined. Findings The available literature suggests that the use of procedurally just practices will help reduce strain, and in doing so, potentially prevent research misconduct in university settings. The authors present an integrated theoretical model that can be tested in future empirical studies of research misconduct and other forms of white-collar crime in universities. Directions for future theoretically informed research are discussed, along with recommendations for graduate program administrators. Originality/value Research misconduct causes significant financial and reputational costs to universities. While past research focuses on mentoring and training for preventing misconduct by graduate students, this study argues that the use of fair evaluations and other procedurally just processes is also important.