Biomedical Research Misconduct Research Articles

Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

This study aimed to assess the nature and prevalence of misconduct in self and nonself-reported biomedical research. A detailed review of previously conducted studies was conducted through PubMed Central, PubMed, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms: "scientific misconduct," "Publications," "plagiarism," and "authorship," and keywords: scientific misconduct, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and duplicate publication. MeSH terms and keywords were searched in combinations using Boolean operators "AND" and "OR." Of 7771 articles that appeared in the search, 107 were selected for inspection. The articles were screened for their quality and inclusion criteria. Finally, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Data analysis was conducted using an Open-Source, Open Meta Analyst, statistical software using the package "metaphor." Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification were prevalent in most articles reviewed. The prevalence of research misconduct for plagiarism was 4.2% for self-reported and 27.9% for nonself-reported studies. Data fabrication was 4.5% in self-reported and 21.7% in nonself-reported studies. Data falsification was 9.7% in self-reported and 33.4% in nonself-reported studies, with significant heterogeneity. This meta-analysis gives a pooled estimate of the misconduct in research done in biomedical fields such as medicine, dental, pharmacy, and others across the world. We found that there is an alarming rate of misconduct in recent nonself-reported studies, and they were higher than that in the self-reported studies.

The Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Research Misconduct Among Health Sciences Undergraduates: How Do They Associate?

Research misconduct is an act of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. This unethical act affects the quality of research publication among private and public sector and is a threat towards the public trust. Studies have shown that there are many factors contributing to the act of committing this behaviour such as environment, pressure and time constrain. Therefore, this study aims to determine the association between knowledge, attitude, and practice of research misconduct among undergraduate students of the Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. A questionnaire was adapted and modified for this study from the “Reporting of Suspected Research Misconduct in Biomedical and Behavioural Research” by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity. Universal sampling method was applied, and the participants were the 4th and 3rd year students. Quantitative cross-sectional study was employed for this study. As a conclusion, there is a weak association between the knowledge and attitude towards practices in research misconduct among undergraduate researchers of FSK, UKM KL which is not statistically significant.

Fraud and Deceit in Medical Research

Fraud and Deceit in Medical Research

Novel Reflections on the Autonomy and Responsibility of Science.

This paper explores how cultural understandings of the autonomy and responsibility of science in modern society are manifested in two contemporary science novels about research misconduct in biomedical research. In doing so, it looks at several facets of the societal impact of and on public and private biomedical research, especially with respect to changing authority relations and their epistemic and institutional consequences. The analysis focuses on the multi-layered ways in which social and epistemic interests are treated in Allegra Goodman’s Intuition and Jennifer Rohn’s The Honest Look. Goodman’s novel demonstrates how, intensified by the economization of science, internal cultural and institutional aspects of the scientific field enable social configurations that, among others, encourage scientific malpractice and lead to the delay of research projects epistemically and socially worth pursuing. In contrast, Rohn’s novel exemplifies the corrosion of the ideal scientific ethos by profit-driven practices in private-sector biomedical sciences. The concluding discussion juxtaposes these findings with pertinent contemporary phenomena in modern science systems to provide a more substantial understanding of the interpenetration between science and other social spheres.

Perceptions of research integrity and the Chinese situation: In-depth interviews with Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe

ABSTRACTResearch misconduct has been a threat to Chinese biomedical research. Despite many publications dealing with research integrity in China, little empirical data is available concerning Chinese biomedical researchers’ perceptions of research integrity and misconduct. To learn more about this issue, we interviewed Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe to investigate their perceptions of this issue. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants until data saturation was reached. The findings indicate that certain aspects of research integrity need elaboration among Chinese biomedical researchers. Participants had a vague understanding of general concepts related to research integrity. Data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism were perceived as the most severe deviance. Inappropriate authorship (especially gift authorship) and ghost writing were regarded as the most prevalent types of research misconduct in Chinese biomedical research. The harms of certain practices, such as inappropriate authorship, salami publication and multiple submission, were not well recognized. Attitudes toward research misconduct were divided. The current scientific evaluation system, pressures of promotion, motives for fame and other factors were perceived as the main reasons for research misconduct. Participants suggested various measures in addition to existing safeguards to improve research integrity in Chinese biomedical research.

Improving research misconduct policies

Current US and international policies for dealing with misconduct in biomedical research follow a largely intuitive approach. For research funded by the Public Health Service in the USA, the definition of research misconduct is “fabrication (making up data or results and recording or reporting them), falsification (manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record), and plagiarism (the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit)”. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion but “must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and the allegation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence” (42 CFR 93.103, 104). > … the efficiency of research misconduct policies in meeting scientific and social goals […] remains largely unknown—as well as the causal factors that underlie misconduct. However, the efficiency of research misconduct policies in meeting scientific and social goals of ensuring public health and safety, the integrity of research and the prudent expenditure of public funds remain largely unknown—as well as the causal factors that underlie misconduct. A recent systematic review by the Cochrane organization found that the evidence on which these policies are based to be incomplete and the existing evidence of low quality and not generalizable. For more than four decades, research misconduct was thought to be extremely rare and largely committed by individual psychopathology—the proverbial bad apples—and that self‐correction by the scientific community is sufficient to manage the problem. The structure of regulation in the USA reflects many of these assumptions: that the individual is solely at fault; that institutions can adequately manage allegations; and that reliance on whistleblowers to draw attention to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) is sufficient. ### Findings from social psychology However, evidence from disciplines such as social …

The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits.

Nearly 90 % of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we discuss the laws that empower federal agencies that can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct investigations pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) are overseen by the NSF’s OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over the ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits of the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Specifically, sufficient data do not need to be retained by U.S. research institutions funded by HHS or NSF to allow effective audit of why allegations of research misconduct are dismissed before being seen by faculty inquiry or investigative committees. U.S. federal Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the research misconduct oversight process, would allow a determination of whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. In particular, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Tackling conflict of interest and misconduct in biomedical research

Biomedical research forms the basis of evidence based practices in the field of health and nutrition. However, it is, increasingly being seen that conflicts of interest and misconduct are undermining research. More and more instances of using research to promote commercial interest are being reported. Fraudulent means, in the quest to publish, are also being used. This article discusses conflict of interest and misconduct in bio-medical research, reviews scientific evidence available on the subject, and proposes some solutions to check the menace.

The Stoke CNEP Saga – did it need to take so long?

In 1999, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, the Royal College of Physicians of London, and the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine convened a consensus conference on Misconduct in Biomedical Research. The conference concluded that a national panel should be established – with public representation – to provide advice and assistance (on issues of research misconduct) on request.1 It was suggested that the panel might develop and promote models of good practice for local implementation; provide assistance with the investigation of alleged research misconduct; and collect, collate and publish information on incidents of research misconduct. It was hoped that the report of the Conference would be given the fullest possible dissemination by the sponsoring bodies, and that they would convene at the earliest opportunity a meeting with the General Medical Council and appropriate partners to establish and consider the remit of the national panel.2

Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research, 4th edn

<i>Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research</i>, 4th edn

Dealing with Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Review of the Problems and the Proposed Methods for Improvement

The increasing complexity of scientific research has been followed by increasing varieties of research misconduct. Dealing with misconduct involves the processes of detection, reporting, and investigation of misconduct. Each of these steps is associated with numerous problems which need to be addressed. Misconduct investigation should not stop with inquiries and disciplinary actions in specific episodes of misconduct. It is necessary to decrease the personal price paid by those who expose misconduct and to protect the personal and professional interests of honest researchers accused of misconduct unfairly or mistakenly. There is no dearth of suggestions to improve the objectivity and fairness of investigations. What is needed is the willingness to test the various options and implement the most suitable ones.

A Reflection on Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research

A Reflection on Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research

Managing allegations of research misconduct.

If science is about the search for truth then dishonesty has to be the gravest sin, and a sin to which biomedical science is going to be particularly vulnerable because observations – if right – are not always replicable in the way they are in the physical sciences. Many of these issues were addressed in a brief report published by the Royal College of Physicians in 1991,1 but it was the publication of the subsequent book on ‘fraud and misconduct in biomedical research’ in 1993 that first brought the issue to the attention of a much wider audience. A new, fourth, and much revised, edition of this book appeared last year and a study of the way the book has evolved over time reveals much about the piecemeal and often rather unsatisfactory way the challenge has been addressed in the UK during the last 15 years.2

A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research

Biomedical research has increased in magnitude over the last two decades. Increasing number of researchers has led to increase in competition for scarce resources. Researchers have often tried to take the shortest route to success which may involve performing fraudulent research. Science suffers from unethical research as much time, effort and cost is involved in exposing fraud and setting the standards right. It is better for all students of science to be aware of the methods used in fraudulent research so that such research can be detected early. Biomedical research is one area that seems to have attracted maximum numbers of fraudulent researchers; hence this article devotes itself to biomedical research scenario.

Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research

This is the third edition of a book which was first published in 1993 . The need for three editions in less than ten years highlights not only the importance of the topic but also the rapid developments in the field, particularly in the area of setting up appropriate national structures to deal with the problem. The chapters have been extensively revised and new chapters added since the last edition by eminent authors not only from the United Kingdom but also from other European countries and the United States . Topics cover such issues as what is fraud and misconduct in medical science, why do researchers venture into this area of deceit, how common is the problem, and how have various governments, national medical bodies, journal editors and the pharmaceutical industry responded to the problem. Chapters also discuss statistical and other techniques useful in detecting suspected fraud. Perhaps most importantly is a discussion on how to prevent fraud from occurring . It maybe argued that South Africa is far from the pressures of 'publish or perish', but the increasing use of health professionals in South Africa to conduct pharmaceutical contract research should make all those concerned with maintaining the name of research in South Africa wary of dismissing the problem as being something that really does not concern us . In fact, the recent much-publicised infamous case of the oncologist in Johannesburg should make this book essential reading for all those who sit on ethics or research committees, or who are members of national structures governing the practice of medicine and research in this country. Although at R760, it maybe felt that this is an expensive book for only 267 pages, it is a book that should be in every medical library in South Africa and should be prescribed reading for all who are studying bioethics in our universities . Finally it is a book whose chapters are well written and easy to read, thus making the content readily available to those whomay not be well versed in medical jurisprudence or ethical discourse . John M Pettifor

Ophthalmology and vision science research

Completion of a scientific manuscript for submission to a peer-reviewed journal is a daunting task for clinicians and scientists early in their careers. In an ongoing series, this third article is the first of 2 related articles that deal with the basics of producing a high-quality research manuscript. Although ophthalmology and vision science are the principal focus of this series, the general concepts essential to producing a quality manuscript are applicable to diverse fields of research. This article highlights the exponential growth in the scientific literature over the past 40 years, considers why it is important to publish completed research, and discusses the necessity of identifying the key messages of the research, and their context, in relation to the published literature. The ethics of publishing biomedical research and scientific misconduct, such as duplicate publication or plagiarism, are outlined. To avoid later conflict, there is a critical need for coworkers to carefully address authorship order and inclusion early in the manuscript process. Internationally agreed guidelines are identified to guide this process. The importance of choosing the correct journal for a specific article and the nature of basic citation indices are discussed. The article concludes by elaborating and contrasting different scientific writing styles and emphasizing the considerable importance of developing a representative title and applying clarity and appropriate structure to the abstract.

Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research

Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research

Fraud and other misconduct in biomedical research

Fraud and other misconduct in biomedical research

Fraud &amp; Misconduct In Biomedical Research

Fraud &amp; Misconduct In Biomedical Research