Scientific Misconduct Research Articles

Scientific misconduct during the pandemic: Retractions in the field of COVID-19

The article aims to understand the characteristics of the retracted articles during the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to identify the countries with the highest number of retractions and the correlation of retractions with funding status, impact factor and collaborations. The study utilised the Retraction Watch Database to identify the retracted articles in the area of COVID-19. The requisite details for each retracted article were recorded, such as title, cause of retraction, date of publication and date of retraction. The impact factor of the journals was ascertained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR-2021) of Clarivate Analytics, and the causes of retraction were categorised under seven major headings according to Charlesworth Author Services. Further, the study used a chi-squared test to determine the association or relationship between the studied variables. As of December 2022, 264 COVID-19 articles were retracted, of which a large proportion (36, 18.27%) were retracted just after 1 month of publication. The retracted articles were published mainly in journals (224, 84.84%), with 40 (15.15%) articles available on the preprint servers. A significant proportion of retractions were initiated by the authors, editors & authors & editors jointly. However, 6.06% of articles did not mention the retraction authority. Most retractions are due to honest error (131, 49.62). The other causes of retractions include ethical misconduct, ethics violation, conflict of interest and peer-review fraud. Among the countries, the highest number of retractions are credited to the United States (59, 22.34%), China (41, 15.53%) and Malta (30, 11.36%). All the retracted articles were available in the open access mode, with 44 (16.66%) articles funded by different funding organisations. The study reveals that non-funded articles have a higher retraction rate than the funded ones. The study also indicates an inverse relationship between the retraction of articles and journal impact factor, indicating that the higher the impact factor of journals, the lower the retraction rate. There is also a direct relationship between authorship and retractions, i.e. the higher the number of authors, the greater the chances of retraction. Also, the articles having a national collaboration are retracted more than the international ones. The study's main limitation is evaluating a limited set of retractions covered by a single database, which is inherited with limitations compared with other databases. The rush to publish during the pandemic poses threats, which would quickly outdate the study's findings with the outgrowth of retractions. Also, retractions can happen even after a long time, confining the generalisation of results. Retraction of published articles has far-reaching consequences, particularly during the pandemic when a huge influx of publications determines the action-treatment plan for a disease. The study helps to understand the characteristics of retracted articles that may help prevent the dissemination of flawed information during health emergencies. The study highlights the corrective mechanism and its characteristics for scientific misconduct prevalent during COVID-19 pandemic. It provides a thorough understanding of article retractions in the field of COVID-19.

Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct

ABSTRACT Background The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct (42 CFR 93), the first major revision of the regulation in nearly twenty years. Much of the commentary published about the 2024 Final Rule has focused on its impacts on research misconduct proceedings at institutions receiving Public Health Service funding. But formally addressing research misconduct is just one part of a larger effort needed to promote research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, and the new rule has the potential to affect this larger effort. Methods This article examines the evolution of the 2024 Final Rule and analyzes five changes with the potential to have broader impacts on cultures of research integrity at U.S. institutions. We consider changes that did and not happen in development from the 2005 Final Rule to the 2023 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the 2024 Final Rule. Results We identify three changes that the research community should welcome (partnership between ORI and the regulated community, identifying potential respondents, and defining research integrity), one change of concern (redefining plagiarism), and one change that might or might not be welcome (promoting research integrity and the responsible conduct of research). Conclusions Although there is cause for concern about some of the 2024 Final Rule’s potential implications for cultures of research integrity at US institutions, the positive changes support an optimistic outlook. In the coming years, it will be critical for HHS, ORI, the research community, and other stakeholders to work hand-in-hand to build on the progress made in the 2024 Final Rule to prevent and address research misconduct as part of a comprehensive effort to promote research integrity and the responsible conduct of research.

The role of senior researchers in promoting good science: Obstacles and enablers

This essay examines senior researchers’ professional responsibilities in fostering ethical research practices within their teams, as outlined in the ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Senior researchers have an important role in preventing research misconduct and promoting a supportive academic environment. However, pressures within academia - particularly the ‘publish or perish’ culture - can lead to stress and potentially unethical practices, including power misuse, exploitation, and neglect of supervisory responsibilities. This essay explores the challenges senior researchers face in fulfilling ethical responsibilities and highlights a ‘slow science’ approach and targeted training to prioritize quality over quantity and to promote better mentorship practices.

Open science in energy research

Energy research is evolving, with new methodologies, technologies, and challenges, while new communication tools allow for quick and cheap dissemination of information. In contrast, data used in relevant research is often kept secret, and proprietary code and non-transparent models are barriers to replication. Also, scientific research is still published in subscription-based journals, hindering knowledge sharing. These practices raise ethical concerns not only stop the dissemination of research but also hinder the identification of research misconduct. Open science has gained momentum and aims to promote openness, reconnecting with traditional research principles. In this paper, we discuss the implications of adopting open science in energy research, examine its benefits but also drawbacks, and present the ongoing discussions in the research community.

Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Retracted articles in endodontic-related literature: an analysis of 60 cases.

The number of retracted articles in the bio-medical field, including dentistry, is increasing. The objective of this study was to identify retracted articles in endodontic-related literature and outline their main characteristics. The Medline and Scopus databases were searched in January 2024. Additional records were identified by consulting the online database www.retractiondatabase.org. Retracted articles concerning endodontic topics and the relative retraction notes were retrieved and relevant data extracted. Sixty articles were identified, published between 2004 and 2022, with a mean of 3.0±2.3 retracted articles per year. The number of retracted articles per year did not significantly grow over time. The average time between the article and retraction note publication was 36.1±22.3 months. The majority of articles originated from Asia and were in-vitro studies. Only 6.7% of the articles were retracted due to honest errors. The main reasons of retraction were image/data manipulation (20%), plagiarism (18%), unavailability of raw data (10%), authorship issues (10%) and publication process issues (10%). A single research group accounted for 17 retractions. Unlike the dental field, the number of retracted articles in endodontics has not increased significantly over the time period considered. Despite this, controls against research misconduct must be increased to preserve the credibility of scientific research.

Seniority, authorship order, and severity of punishment in research misconduct – shared/honorary authorships as explanations for an apparent paradox

Seniority, authorship order, and severity of punishment in research misconduct – shared/honorary authorships as explanations for an apparent paradox

A new holistic approach to preventing accounting fraud in the non-profit organisation (NPO) sector: some propositions and research agenda

PurposeThis paper systematically reviewed research on accounting fraud in the non-profit organisation (NPO) sector during 2004–2024 to identify gaps in theory and practice with the aim of producing a new parsimonious global fraud model.Design/methodology/approachThis paper utilised a structured literature review methodology.FindingsWe propose a new holistic approach for the NPO sector worldwide, with two foci of “what may contribute to fraud” and “what may prevent fraud”.Research limitations/implicationsThe future research agenda for the new holistic approach is provided.Practical implicationsThe approach helps donors promote accountability and transparency in the NPO sector worldwide, thereby sustaining the development of this sector.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first comprehensive worldwide fraud research review, making distinct contributions. Globally, the approach is the first dedicated to the NPO sector, including different stages of fraud occurrence (undetected, suspected, actual/detected and future), and using a multi-disciplinary approach to prevent these stages. The approach is also the first to incorporate individual-level, organisational-level, industry-level and country-level factors into predicting future fraud.

Professional improbity: How Hermann J. Muller's ethics affected his science.

The present paper provides an assessment of how the scientific and national policy achievements/goals of Hermann J. Muller were impacted by his ethics and provides several documented episodes in which Muller acted unethically to promote his personal gain-at the expense of others-within the scientific community. Muller manipulated the scientific community in self-serving ways to suppress perspectives that challenged his own views on radiation-induced gene mutation, and hereditary and cancer risk assessment in ways that influenced his significant awards (e.g., Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology), continued grant funding, and manifest effect on public health policy. Muller acted irresponsibly toward students and directed them to violate University of Texas policies that incurred severe student disciplinary actions (e.g., University suspension). Muller avoided responsibility by resigning from the University of Texas, avoiding a trial that could have led to his dismissal, and impacted his career achievements during the period of his nomination for the Nobel Prize. Muller was also a member of a US National Academy of Sciences Committee that committed scientific misconduct by misrepresenting the research record in ways that enhanced his continued funding support and fortified his influence on US health policy. The case of Muller is presented as a morality and object lesson worthy of consideration for current and future ethical conduct of scientific research.

Implementing a Responsible Conduct of Research Curriculum for an Undergraduate Summer Clinical Research Program in Quantitative Sciences.

Instilling the principles of ethical and responsible medical research is critical for educating the next generation of clinical researchers. We developed a responsible conduct of research (RCR) workshop and associated curriculum for undergraduate trainees in a quantitative clinical research program. Topics in this 7-module RCR workshop are relevant to undergraduate trainees in quantitative fields, many of whom are learning about these concepts for the first time. These topics include: (1) research collaboration and mentoring, (2) human subjects and privacy, (3) rigor, reproducibility, and responsibility in data analysis, (4) data safety, security, and sharing, (5) responsible authorship, peer reviews, and conflicts of interest, (6) research misconduct and whistleblowing, and (7) social responsibility and contemporary ethical issues. The workshop adopts an active learning approach and is intended to encourage peer-to-peer learning through a critical review of case studies and contemporary media reports. Workshop materials and discussions are designed to address experiences relevant to undergraduate trainees. For example, for the discussion on human subject protection, trainees are asked to review their own university's policies for engaging students as research subjects. Student perceived knowledge and understanding of research ethics were obtained from pre- and post-workshop surveys, with responses ranging from 1 (low level of understanding) to 5 (high level of understanding). Survey responses from 38 trainees across 4 years demonstrated marked increase in perceived knowledge and understanding of research ethics, from 64% in pre- to 96% in post-workshop responses with scores of 3 and up. Trainees noted the effectiveness of the active learning format of the workshop and relevance of the topics on their own research projects. Intentional instruction is vital to help trainees discern between good and bad science in research. The presented RCR curriculum can be adapted by other programs designed for trainees engaged in medical research and education.

Retraction notice to "UV light assisted photocatalytic degradation of textile waste water by Mg0.8-xZnxFe2O4 synthesized by combustion method and in-vitro antimicrobial activities" [Environ. Res. 204 (2022) 111917

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. The corresponding author was contacted regarding concerns detailed on PubPeer at https://pubpeer.com/publications/361146E97AA055AFBEDEDCD07290D9#. Whilst the Editor felt that the materials and methods section is superficial and lacks details for reproducibility, it was not possible to determine conclusively whether or not there had been any scientific malpractice. However, unauthorised authorship changes were made when the revised version of this paper was submitted, following suggestions for relatively minor revisions from the reviewers and Guest Editor, with authors Shen-Ming Chen, Tse-Wei Chen and Khalid S. Almaary being added to the paper. No satisfactory explanation was given for this change, nor was it approved by the editor. This authorship change breaches the policies of the journal and as a result, the editors no longer have confidence in this paper and are retracting it. The journal apologises for not having identified the problematic authorship change during the review process and for any resulting inconvenience.

Retraction notice to "Green synthesis and characterization of titanium dioxide nanoparticles using leaf extract of Pouteria campechiana and larvicidal and pupicidal activity on Aedes aegypti" [Environ. Res. 200 (2021) 111333

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. The corresponding author was contacted regarding concerns detailed on PubPeer at https://pubpeer.com/publications/E9BA07F47CED66DABC82C545FEE82E. In the absence of a response from the author, the Editor felt that there was insufficient evidence to be able to determine conclusively whether or not there had been any scientific malpractice regarding this data. However, unauthorised authorship changes were made when the revised version of this paper was submitted, following suggestions for relatively minor revisions from the reviewers and Guest Editor, with authors Mishal Alsehli and Ashraf Elfasakhany being added to the paper. No explanation was given for this change, nor was it approved by the editor. This authorship change breaches the policies of the journal and as a result, the editors no longer have confidence in this paper and are retracting it. The journal apologises for not having identified the problematic authorship change during the review process and for any resulting inconvenience.

The intersection of artificial intelligence and rehabilitation sciences: promoting originality and integrity in research

Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a scientific discipline is an exciting opportunity for the development of a new direction in rehabilitation sciences and the improvement of patient care and research approaches [1]. Nevertheless, this integration brings a lot of problems to the issue of credibility and novelty around the processes of researching practices. Thus, this editorial is devoted to these questions, stressing the importance of a strong ethic compared to the standards for research in this shifting context. AI technologies have started influencing Rehabilitation sciences by offering individualized intervention, patient tracking, and optimization of the results by using big data analytics [2, 3]. For example, the machine learning approach may retrieve an avalanche of data to predict rehabilitation strategies that may be effective for patients with particular characteristics [4]. Nonetheless, as more developments are created through the utilization of artificial intelligence, the likelihood of ethical concerns and questions regarding originality in research rises as well [5]. Scientific practice requires creativity and any utilization of AI needs to hold to this regulated element of advancement. Investigators should implement specific precautions to avoid plagiarism or the unauthorized borrowing of concepts through the use of AI tools [6]. This requires policies and procedures that define how the use of AI in production can be realized without compromising the research process domain [7]. AI practice must be brought into the open through mandatory reporting obligations that compel institutions to declare the use of AI throughout research processes It is equally important in all fields especially those which have the potential to endanger the lives of patients. As noted in various studies, the principles of ethical practice like candor, accountability, and transparency are critical in developing public confidence in science [8]. That means the rehabilitation sciences community must embrace the operational and best use of AI and ensure that researchers learn the ethics of using them and the importance of following the set standards. There is a need to ensure institutional commitment to the training of consciousness on responsible conduct of research and the use of AI [7]. Key factors touched upon here include bias that exists in the AI systems they develop and the kind of data they produce [9, 10]. To this end, researchers should be compelled to specify the strategies they have applied AI in their research; the database they have utilized; the algorithm they have employed; and the reasons as to why they selected such choices [11]. This transparency is necessary to make methods reproducible and trustworthy [12]. There was a proposal that enhancing the elements of interdisciplinary interaction would increase the yield of their work [13]. There is also the concern that the ethical standards followed should not be overlooked in the peer review processes thus the procedures should be changed to allow for the review of the implementation of AI [6]. Universities and research centers need to develop strong guidelines to prevent researchers from engaging in wrongdoing; this can involve developing and providing procedures for reporting research misconduct [14-16]. AI in the domain of rehabilitation sciences has the potential to take the specialty to the next level. However, this potential has to be controlled and balanced by the goals of novelty, as well as the ethical course of the research. By keeping the emphasis on ethical behavior and core principles of the rehabilitation sciences the community can embrace the attributes of AI while at the same time preserving the integrity of science. It will increase the quality of work done while also making new technologies in rehabilitation it is useful and beneficial for society. artificial intelligence integrity rehabilitation sciences

Proving research misconduct

Abstract Detecting and punishing violations of research integrity requires first having to prove them. However, establishing proof of research misconduct presents a number of challenges. Firstly, it has to be conducted in a variety of contexts, including before research integrity officers, university disciplinary committees, civil courts, criminal courts, at first instance and on appeal. In each of these instances, the rules of evidence have their own specific features. Secondly, it may be necessary to prove not only material facts, but also circumstances that are more difficult to grasp, such as intention or negligence. In addition, not all evidence is admissible, as it may breach a duty of fairness or protected secrets. Consequently, research integrity officers and judges may be unable to consider all relevant evidence when assessing allegations of misconduct. This article examines the legal issues pertaining to the proof of research misconduct, based on French law and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article examines the burden of proof, the object of proof, the admissibility of evidence and the exclusion of evidence. It identifies the differences in evidence that exist depending on whether investigations into research misconduct are conducted before research integrity officers or before the courts. It analyses the justifications for these differences and concludes that the role of research integrity officers should not be confused with that of judges, even if this leads to differences in the proving of research misconduct.

Identifying and counteracting fraudulent responses in online recruitment for health research: a scoping review

ObjectivesThis study aimed to describe how health researchers identify and counteract fraudulent responses when recruiting participants online.DesignScoping review.Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed studies published in English; studies that report on the online recruitment...

Assessing institutional responsibility in scientific misconduct: A case study of enoximone research by Joachim Boldt.

Enoximone, a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, was approved in Germany in 1989 and initially proposed for heart failure and perioperative cardiac conditions. The research of Joachim Boldt and his supervisor Gunter Hempelmann came under scrutiny after investigations revealed systematic scientific misconduct leading to numerous retractions. Therefore, early enoximone studies by Boldt and Hempelmann from 1988 to 1991 were reviewed. PubMed-listed publications and dissertations on enoximone from the Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen were analyzed for study design, participant demographics, methods, and outcomes. The data were screened for duplications and inconsistencies. Of seven randomized controlled trial articles identified, two were retracted. Five of the non-retracted articles reported similarly designed studies and included similar patient cohorts. The analysis revealed overlap in patient demographics and reported outcomes and inconsistencies in cardiac index values between trials, suggesting data duplication and manipulation. Several other articles have been retracted. The analysis results of misconduct and co-authorship of retracted studies during Boldt's late formative years indicate inadequate mentorship. The university's slow response in supporting the retraction of publications involving scientific misconduct indicates systemic oversight problems. All five publications analyzed remained active and warrant retraction to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. This analysis highlights the need for improved institutional supervision. The current guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics for retraction are inadequate for large-scale scientific misconduct. Comprehensive ethics training, regular audits, and transparent reporting are essential to ensure the credibility of published research.

False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text.

In reviewing a video series that they created for the website of the Health Physics Society (HPS), past leaders of the Health Physics Society have treated as authoritative and trustworthy the scientific misconduct theories of University of Massachusetts Professor Edward Calabrese. No mention is made of detailed critiques of Calabrese's work. I show that Calabrese's historical work as presented by HPS's authors is unreliable because it overlooks key historical text and key statistical concepts about the limits of an early atomic bomb genetics study. When these errors are corrected, claims of scientific misconduct on the part of historical figures evaporate. Claims of threshold behavior in early radiation genetic experiments are wrong for atomic bomb data. Calabrese's unique claims about thresholds in early animal genetic data are not credible for human cancer, given the doses at which they were carried out (>30 R). Recent epidemiological studies of both acute and protracted exposure in humans fail to show dose-rate effects or a dose threshold above 30 R. Such results from human data should be more relevant for most regulators and review committees than Calabrese's claims about old data on animals. Disclaimers, errata, and links to critiques should be added to the HPS webpage hosting the 22-part video series. Failure to do so can cause damage to reputations and historical accuracy because it erroneously validates Calabrese's inflammatory claims of scientific misconduct against past scientists, including three Nobel Prize winners, members of the NAS, and presidents of the AAAS.

مدى الوعي بدور برامج إدارة الاستشهادات والمراجع في البحوث العلمية: دراسة حالة على طالبات قسم علم المعلومات

The study aimed to know the extent of awareness of the students of the Department of Information Science of the role of citation and reference management programs in scientific research. To achieve this, the researchers designed a questionnaire divided into three axes and used the case study approach. The tool was distributed randomly to the students of the department, and the questionnaire was filled out by 77 students. The results of the study showed that the responding sample members were aware of the concept of citation and reference management programs from a theoretical perspective only, at a rate of (59.7%). The source of the "college or university library" came in second place for sources of introducing students to citation and reference management programs, with a number of responses reaching 12, at a rate of 15.6%. The results also indicated an increase in the percentage of the program (End Note knowledge and fame) among the students of the Department of Information Science who responded to the data collection tool, which reached a rate of (49.4%). The program (End Note) also came in first place with a rate of 73.2%, with a response of 41 students out of the total number of students, for the programs they wish to train on. The study came out with recommendations including: increasing awareness of the importance of citation management programs among all students of the Information Science Department, providing training courses and workshops on citation and reference management programs and their role in documenting scientific research and linking the importance of documentation to avoiding scientific plagiarism and achieving academic integrity, designing a guide that explains the mechanism for using and activating citation and reference management programs, and finally integrating the topic of citation and reference management programs into the academic curricula, especially the scientific research skills course, to provide students with the skills to use technology.

Re-thinking vulnerability: Research fraud and bureaucratic harm in community-engaged online research

Vulnerability – understood broadly as susceptibility to harm – factors into many social science research projects, including those that are qualitative, involve collaborations between scholars and members of the group under study, and engage with online research techniques and technologies. However, guidance for how researchers and communities may understand, navigate, and mitigate vulnerability in such projects is often scattered across disciplines, making it difficult for researchers to discern relevant best practices. To further understandings of vulnerability here, we reflect in this article on our experience with a mixed-method project, where we partnered with sex workers across the United States to study their experiences with the online platforms they use to facilitate and conduct their work. Based on our encounters with university bureaucracies and research fraud over the course of this project, we argue broadly that vulnerability is not a fixed, inherent attribute of certain research participants; instead, it emerges through various relations and events in the field, and all parties involved in a research project may experience it. To illustrate this argument, we demonstrate how university bureaucratic practices and research fraud may variously harm both participants and researchers by undermining community collaborations, data collection, and researcher safety and well-being. In conclusion we suggest best practices for online research and for universities, so they may better protect researchers and the integrity of such studies.

Opening the black box of article retractions: exploring the causes and consequences of data management errors.

The retraction of an article is probably the most severe outcome of a scientific project. While great emphasis has been placed on articles retracted due to scientific misconduct, studies show many retractions are due to honest errors. Unfortunately, in most cases, retraction notices do not provide sufficient information to determine the specific types and causes of these errors. In our study, we explored the research data management (RDM) errors that led to retractions from the authors' perspectives. We collected responses from 97 researchers from a broad range of disciplines using a survey design. Our exploratory results suggest that just about any type of RDM error can lead to the retraction of a paper, and these errors can occur at any stage of the data management workflow. The most frequently occurring cause of an error was inattention. The retraction was an extremely stressful experience for the majority of our sample, and most surveyed researchers introduced changes to their data management workflow as a result. Based on our findings, we propose that researchers revise their data management workflows as a whole instead of focusing on certain aspects of the process, with particular emphasis on tasks vulnerable to human fallibility.