Misconduct In Scientific Research Research Articles

Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?

Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.

Response\u2014Corruption, Trust, and Professional Regulation

In their 2018 article in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Little, Lipworth, and Kerridge unpack the concept of corruption and clarify the mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist, noting that organizations are “corruptogenic.” To address the “so-what” question, I draw on research about trust and trustworthiness, emphasizing that a person’s well-being and sense of security require trust to be present at both the individual and organizational levels—which is not possible in an environment where corruption and misconduct prevail. I highlight similarities in Little et al.’s framing of corruption to the persistent problem of scientific misconduct in research and publishing. I acknowledge the challenges in stemming corruption in science and medicine and conclude with a discussion about the need to reinvigorate a web of stakeholders to actively engage in professional regulation.

Nine Ways to Detect Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research with Small (N < 200) Samples

Some scientists have fabricated their data, yet have published their fake results in peer-reviewed journals. How can we detect patterns typical of fabricated research? Nine relatively less complex ways for detecting potentially fabricated data in small samples (N < 200), are presented, using data from articles published since 1999 as illustrations. Even with smaller samples, there are several ways in which scholars, as well as their undergraduate and graduate students, can detect possible fabrication of data as well as other questionable research practices (QRPs). However, with larger samples, other techniques may be needed.

Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research

The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants ( N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants ( N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most common reported form of scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they had not violated ethical standards in the past; 3% admitted to scientific misconduct; 51% reported being were aware of colleagues’ scientific misconduct. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) reported being aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants report observing publication pressure in their subordinates. The primary conclusions are: (1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; (2) scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, is frequently observed both by researchers (particularly in their colleagues) and by their managers; (3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report a willingness to engage in scientific misconduct in the future.

Autoplagio y duplicación: un asunto en contra de la ética en la investigación científica

Entre las malas conductas en investigación científica se encuentran los casos de plagio, autoplagio y duplicación; que atentan contra la veracidad y credibilidad de las publicaciones y revistas científicas que se enfrentan a estos casos. Así, para garantizar que los procesos de evaluación editorial y publicación se realicen adecuadamente y a la luz de los lineamientos éticos, a lo largo de los años se han consolidado asociaciones y comités cuyo objetivo fundamental es asegurar la entrega de productos científicos de calidad; algunos ejemplos de estas organizaciones son: la Asociación Mundial de Editores Médicos (WAME, por sus siglas en inglés), el Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (ICMJE, por sus siglas en inglés) y el Comité de Ética para Publicaciones (COPE, por sus siglas en inglés), entre otros.

Scientific research misconduct in social science research: What is it and how can we address it?

Scientific misconduct is on the rise with the increasing emphasis on research by many academic institutions A review of the literature shows various reasons behind this trend from the difficulty of publication to the constant pressure to publish in academia Further lack of systematic reporting standards is one of the major contributing factors towards misconduct and unethical practices in scientific research In this analysis the authors will provide a detailed narrative on scientific misconduct along with possible strategies to address this common unethical practice among social science researchers This article will define and discuss the practices of falsification fabrication and plagiarism along with suggestions about how to avoid them

At a Crossroads: Jump Forward or Fall Behind

It has been more than 2 years since Environmental Health and Toxicology (EHT) was converted to an online, open access, English-only journal. EHT established an online submission system and was indexed successfully in the international database PubMed. Now, at least as a matter of form, EHT seems to have reached the first milestone on the way toward its goal of being a truly distinguished international academic journal in the field of environmental health and toxicology. However, EHT still has some tasks to accomplish in order to reach the final goal. EHT aims to be a place where multidisciplinary fields of science related to the environment, that is, toxicology, chemistry, risk assessment, biostatistics, exposure assessment, and epidemiology, converge and are integrated. In particular, we are dedicated to making it a leading academic journal in the Asian region. The topics we want EHT to deal with range broadly from ecotoxicology to climate change and health policy, from micro to macro science, from a regional to a global scale. To reach our target, EHT must overcome some obstacles. First, EHT needs more manuscript submissions. EHT welcomes not only original articles, but also diverse types of manuscripts, including systematic reviews or meta-analyses, reviews of meetings or conferences, brief reports, investigative reports, case reports, special topics, perspectives, editorials, letters to the editor, debates, and hypotheses. Specifically, EHT embraces descriptive studies in relation to basic indices of environmental exposure, health, and toxicology. Globalization of the members of the editorial board as well as the authorship of and topics of published articles is also very important. Timely article series dealing with environmental issues that are currently drawing a great deal of attention should be organized. Second, EHT should increase its visibility so that more readers worldwide can encounter the manuscripts we publish. For this, the journal needs to be indexed in more international academic databases. The unofficial impact factor of EHT during 2011-2012 was 0.38, which is not bad as a starting point within the international academic publishing community. Third, EHT should enforce the principles and screening system for publication ethics. Scientific journals are places where the three important stakeholders in the community of peer-reviewed science meet: editors and publishers, authors, and reviewers. Here, during the process of manuscript submission, reviewing, and publication of a journal, screening for scientific errors or ethical problems and checking and improving scientific soundness are performed. EHT needs to adopt up-to-date technology to screen for misconduct in scientific research and publication. In 2013, EHT is at a crossroads. We can fall behind or jump forward.

Practice of the standardized management of graduate students' experimental records

It introduced the standardized management of graduate students' experimental records. On the basis of experimental records standardization, 3 level inspection system including tutors, departments and graduate school plays a very important role in setting up the good habit, getting more reliable experimental results and preventing the happening of misconduct in scientific research. Key words: Graduate students; Experimental records; Academic morality

Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe

National governments invest in re‐search and development with the intention of creating new jobs and commodities and of stimulating economic growth. At the same time, science is becoming a truly global enterprise owing to the increased ease of international collaboration and communication between research groups and the global mobility of scientists themselves. The globalization of science and its growing economic importance underlines the need to establish and harmonize codes of good scientific practice and to regulate procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct. At the moment, however, it is the case that countries—and even different institutions in the same country—apply different standards and procedures to securing research integrity. > The globalization of science and its growing economic importance underlines the need to establish and harmonize codes of good scientific practice… This fragmented landscape of quality control is dissatisfying for all parties: the public, academic institutions and scientists themselves. In this regard, the USA has had a 20‐year head start: responding to widely publicized cases of research misconduct—namely fraud, falsification and plagiarism—US Congress created the Office of Scientific Integrity in 1989—now the Office of Research Integrity (ORI; Rockville, MD, USA)—to handle allegations of scientific misconduct in research that is funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the National Institutes of Health. The US procedures stipulate that the ORI must assess investigative reports submitted by institutions and, through an oversight role, decide whether or not misconduct has occurred (www.ori.hhs.gov). In addition, scientific fraud and falsification in publicly funded research are taken more seriously in the USA; they are considered as misappropriation of federal funds, with fitting legal sanctions. Indeed, several US scientists who committed fraud and falsification were eventually sentenced to stiff fines and even jail terms (www.ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/cases). There is, of course, also a long history of allegations …

Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice

Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice

Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity for the Bench Scientist

This paper describes the role of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), a component of the Public Health Service (PHS), in defining scientific misconduct in research supported with PHS funds and in establishing standards for responding to allegations of misconduct. The principal methods by which ORI exercises its responsibilities in this area are defining what types of behaviors undertaken by research investigators constitute misconduct, overseeing institutional efforts to Investigate and report misconduct, and recommending to the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) PHS administrative actions when misconduct is identified. ORI also takes affirmative steps to promote research integrity through education, training, and other initiatives. The role of the research institution in responding to misconduct and promoting research integrity is complementary and overlapping with ORI's efforts but, as the employer of research investigators and front-line manager of the research, the institution has a greater oppor...

ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992–2002

Since 1992 the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) had reviewed investigations of scientific misconduct in research funded by the US Public Health Service (PHS). ORI defined scientific misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research". The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings and administrative actions reported in ORI notices of scientific misconduct in clinical trials occurring between May 1992 and 2002. Findings of misconduct were gathered from publicly available sources: the ORI annual reports and the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts. Clinical trials accounted for 17 (13%) of the 136 investigations that resulted in findings of scientific misconduct, and they were noted in 12 (11%) of the 113 brief reports of investigations closed with findings of no scientific misconduct. In clinical trials, the most severe sanction, debarment from US Government funding, was applied in six (35%) of the cases of misconduct compared to 79 (66%) of 119 cases from all other types of research combined. Of individuals cited for misconduct in clinical trials, three (18%) held doctorates in contrast to 81 (68%) in other types of research. In clinical trials, junior employees may bear the burden of sanction for scientific misconduct. The most frequently applied sanction was the requirement that a plan of supervision of the sanctioned employees accompany any future application for funding which would include them. This imposition of sanction on an individual employee does not address possible causes of misconduct which may be inherent in the overall pattern of leadership, training and supervision in the trial. Furthermore, the definition of misconduct, as interpreted by the Departmental Appeals Board, excludes carelessness and other poor research practices that may lead to dissemination of more incorrect data than misconduct.

Teaching scientific integrity and research ethics

Cases of misconduct in scientific research have enforced a lively public and scientific discussion. The international scientific community has been engaged during the last years in the search for adequate responses to fraud and misconduct. Most of the new guidelines emphasize the responsibility of researchers and scientific institutions for preventive measures; the teaching of research ethics should be included in undergraduate and postgraduate academic education. At the Universities of Ulm and Marburg members of the ‘Study group Ethics in Medicine’ are developing a teaching program in Research Ethics. They now offer courses: teaching in small groups (7–15 participants) with structured case discussions. These courses are not mandatory. The first steps in the development of the teaching program for young scientists in medicine, biology, chemistry, and physics have been taken. The fields of conflicts in these different fields of science are very similar. We offered five case discussion sessions with mixed groups (postgraduate students, postdocs, head of departments) and the first results are very positive: high acceptance, high motivation, high demand for next courses.

Scientific misconduct and research integrity for the bench scientist.

This paper describes the role of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), a component of the Public Health Service (PHS), in defining scientific misconduct in research supported with PHS funds and in establishing standards for responding to allegations of misconduct. The principal methods by which ORI exercises its responsibilities in this area are defining what types of behaviors undertaken by research investigators constitute misconduct, overseeing institutional efforts to investigate and report misconduct, and recommending to the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) PHS administrative actions when misconduct is identified. ORI also takes affirmative steps to promote research integrity through education, training, and other initiatives. The role of the research institution in responding to misconduct and promoting research integrity is complementary and overlapping with ORI's efforts but, as the employer of research investigators and front-line manager of the research, the institution has a greater opportunity to promote the highest standards of integrity in the day-to-day conduct of research. Finally, legal precedent established through civil litigation has played an important role in defining the standards that apply in determining when a breach of research integrity has occurred.

Maintaining client safety and scientific integrity in research with battered women.

To increase awareness of considerations of privacy and safety as well as the potential for scientific misconduct in research with battered women and other groups especially vulnerable to these concerns. Research with such vulnerable populations demands consideration of privacy and safety of participants in order to limit any potentially negative consequences while also ensuring scientific integrity. Maintaining scientific integrity and protecting vulnerable groups are important but potentially contradictory. Battered women are the examples to illustrate instances of conflict in which protecting participants may undermine scientific integrity. Literature on scientific integrity and misconduct, battered women, and vulnerable populations, and socially sensitive topics from nursing, other biomedical and social sciences, and the U.S. Public Health Service, 1978-1998. Integrative literature review. Conducting research with battered women in an ethically responsible manner that maintains scientific integrity without compromising advocacy or safety is possible when scientists are aware of potential conflicts and methods to ensure integrity. Nurses frequently do research with vulnerable groups such as battered women. Being proactive can help promote scientific integrity, avoid scientific misconduct, and decrease negative outcomes.

The clinical investigator as target

Misconduct in scientific research has been given increasing attention during the past two decades. Whether charges of misconduct, misconduct itself, or public concern about it have been on the rise is unclear, but actions taken by professional and medical organizations, universities, and government evidence a reaction to the increased attention. The purpose here is not to review specific instances of alleged fraud or other research misconduct; rather, the goals are to acquaint clinical investigators with the extent to which they are in an exposed (and precarious) position and to suggest how to improve their position. The word target in the title is used deliberately. When the United States Attorney (the federal district prosecutor) names a person as a target of an investigation, it means the U.S. Attorney’s Office has received allegations of criminal conduct, has decided to present the case to a grand jury to secure an indictment, and has already sent or will send to the target a letter offering that person the opportunity to go before the grand jury. If the target accepts, he or she will be asked questions under oath without counsel present. Counsel may remain outside the grand jury room and the individual may consult counsel with respect to taking the Fifth Amendment and making other difficult decisions. Although research misconduct proceedings in a university or other institution are not criminal in nature, the objective here is to suggest that once the charges have surfaced the investigator may indeed feel like the target of a criminal investigation. Much of what follows is based on matters that came to light as the result of activities of a congressional subcommittee and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that led to charges of scientific misconduct in connection with the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) being brought against University of Pittsburgh faculty members. Three faculty members are now under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) because of the alleged misconduct.

Public science and norms of truthfulness.

The phenomenon of misconduct in scientific research illustrates how great can be the social damage of not knowing the incidence of a malady. Many urgings about such phenomenon have predicated views about the extent of institutional and governmental vigilance on observers' differing surmises about how frequently misconduct occurs. Such is the measurement error of extant data about incidence1 that one can venture little more than the deliberately imprecise conclusion that “misconduct is neither common nor rare.”

Misconduct in Scientific Publishing

Fraud, plagiarism, and other serious misconduct in scientific research and publication have become subjects of intense interest to certain journalists, politicians, and sociologists. One wonders why all the sudden activity in this area, especially when it seems to be a relatively minor problem compared to things like homelessness, poverty, drug addiction, or child abuse. It is, however, a topic that scientists must address, if only because the repercussions from external attention by Congress (or, worse, state legislatures) could seriously both the autonomy that scientists enjoy in the U.S. and the fabric of research publication. In Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing, Marcel C. LaFollette, an associate research professor in science and technology policy at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., examines how these issues affect communication practices and policies in the journals that disseminate the results of scientific research. She gives ...

Data management and accountability in behavioral and biomedical research.

Regulations recently enacted by the Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation to address misconduct in scientific research were designed primarily to curtail deliberate forms of misconduct, such as fabrication or falsification of findings; however, researchers may also be held accountable for inadvertent deficiencies in data management. This article examines some of the problems in data quality control, documentation, and data retention that can occur when computers are used in scientific research. It focuses on deficiencies that could make it difficult to verify the integrity of research data or to reproduce statistical analyses. Strategies for prevention of data management problems are recommended.

Accountability and responsibility in research

Fraud and misconduct in scientific research appears to be increasing since 1980 when several cases were disclosed. Earlier instances were handled awkwardly, but the scientific community has since mobilized and issued guidelines about responding to allegations of misconduct and about the responsible conduct of research. Scientists, editors and the institutions of science are slowly learning how to cope with this problem.