As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes embedded in academic workflows, concerns are increasing about researchers developing psychological and behavioral dependence on AI systems. Although AI tools can significantly enhance research efficiency and analytical capabilities, excessive or uncritical reliance may lead to cognitive disengagement, emotional over attachment, and maladaptive academic practices. Yet, the literature still lacks a validated instrument that can systematically assess AI dependency within scholarly contexts. This study addresses this gap by developing a multidimensional scale that draws on the affect, behavior, and cognition (ABC) model as the foundational structure of psychological response, incorporates basic psychological needs theory (BPN) to explain motivational dynamics, and is ultimately grounded in the I-PACE model, which provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the development of dependency-related behaviors. The scale was developed using a rigorous mixed-methods design implemented across a five-stage sequence that encompassed systematic item generation, expert review for content adequacy, and extensive empirical evaluation with a large academic sample. Findings from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses converged to support a stable three-factor structure consisting of fifteen theoretically coherent items. The instrument demonstrated strong psychometric integrity, including high internal consistency, robust convergent and discriminant validity, and meaningful predictive validity, particularly in relation to attitudes linked to academic research misconduct. By establishing a validated measure of AI dependency within research contexts, this study advances current debates in digital ethics and responsible AI use and offers an empirically grounded tool for strengthening research integrity practices in higher education.

University teachers perspectives on publish or perish policies and research misconduct in a developing country

Bribery by the pharmaceutical industry is one common manifestation of corruption that can be found in a pharmaceutical system. This study analyzes patterns of bribery in the global pharmaceutical industry through a systematic review of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery Phase Reports published between 1999 and February 2025. These reports document investigations and enforcement actions related to bribery across jurisdictions. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key patterns in cases implicating pharmaceutical firms. We found patterns across many of the cases we studied. For example, bribery was often approved by high-ranking managers. Also, the use of intermediaries and complicated corporate structures to obscure bribes. Multiple cases revealed the involvement of subsidiaries, third-party vendors, or shell companies that processed payments disguised as legitimate transaction. Reported bribes amounted to about US$12.6 million, with sanctions exceeding US$1.1 billion. Government officials, regulatory authorities, and healthcare providers were bribed through cash, gifts, luxury travel, and fraudulent research to gain market access, increase sales, or influence prescribing. These findings underscore the systemic nature of bribery in the pharmaceutical sector and call for stronger oversight and accountability to protect public trust and equitable medicine access.

Findings of Research Misconduct.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have rapidly become essential components in STEM education. However, there is limited guidance for implementing these classes in fully asynchronous online formats. We discuss the design and implementation of our 15-week asynchronous online CURE focused on open science literacy and bioinformatics. Twenty to thirty first-year undergraduate students per semester conducted a collaborative research project evaluating the long-term availability of biological databases, contributing to a publicly accessible dataset released online and built upon every year. We focus on introducing scientific methodology and encouraging critical thinking over teaching technical skills, exposing students to contemporary scientific controversies including research misconduct, reproducibility challenges, and open science practices. We found that our key strategies for successful asynchronous implementation included: (1) front-loaded course development with comprehensive video tutorials and detailed protocols; (2) flexible assignment deadlines emphasizing collaborative responsibility rather than rigid enforcement; and (3) multiple feedback touchpoints through anonymous questionnaires and continuous communication channels. We believe that CURE experiences can be successfully adapted to distributed learning environments while maintaining student engagement, fostering scientific literacy, and accommodating diverse student schedules and commitments.

Background: Article retraction means removing a published article from the journal because of ethical issues or scientific errors in order to correct the literature. In this study, we aimed to determine the reasons for retracting biomedical articles written by authors from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included all retracted biomedical articles with first authors affiliated with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, or Turkey, retracted between September 1, 2010, and September 1, 2019. Data were extracted from Retraction Watch, MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), Clarivate Analytics, and Scopus. Each article’s information was entered into a data collection form and analyzed using SPSS version 24. Results: Of 436 retracted articles, Iran had the highest number (223), followed by Turkey (80), Egypt (72), Saudi Arabia (35), and Pakistan (26). Common causes of retraction included plagiarism, duplication, authorship issues, and fake peer review. In Iran, fake peer review (42.6%) and authorship issues (41.3%) were most prevalent. Significant inter-country differences were found in retraction frequency and causes. The most affected fields were biology, biochemistry, oncology, cardiovascular, surgery, and pathology. Conclusion: The results showed that scientific misconducts (plagiarism, duplication, authorship issues, and fake peer review) were the main reasons for retracting the articles in the five studied countries. To reduce such misconducts, regional regulatory policies, improved editorial practices, and enhanced research ethics training are urgently needed.

ABSTRACT Doctoral defences play a critical role in safeguarding the integrity and credibility of doctoral education. In Mongolia, however, defence practices, administered through centralised committees rooted in Soviet academic traditions, face significant structural, cultural, and ethical challenges. This study explores how doctoral defences have become vulnerable to academic and research misconduct, including favouritism, plagiarism, contract cheating, political interference, and corruption. Using a basic qualitative study design informed by critical theories, this research draws on in‐depth interviews with 37 stakeholders (defence committee members, faculty, doctoral students, and policymakers) and a document review of defence‐related regulations. The study is critical in orientation and reveals underlying systemic issues shaped by socio‐economic, cultural, historical, and institutional factors by drawing on neoliberalism and post‐socialist legacies. Thematic analysis identified six emerging themes: subjective and opaque decision‐making; patronage and political influence; violations of research integrity; misconduct related to international students; administrative and financial pressures on doctoral candidates; and concerns about committee competence and selection. Stakeholders proposed reform direction, including a gradual transition to independent institutional defences, shifting from a high‐stakes assessment model to a more developmental approach, strengthening merit‐based committee selection, differentiating research and professional doctorate pathways, and reforming defence‐related cultural and procedural practices. By situating Mongolia's experience within broader post‐socialist transformations, this study contributes to global discussions on developing credible, equitable, and development‐oriented doctoral assessment systems.

A commentary written by Jan Beyea claimed that the HPS interview of Edward Calabrese on the historical evolution of the linear no-threshold model was unreliable because it overlooked key historical text and statistical concepts. Beyea states that the purpose of his commentary was to defend the integrity of historical figures and committees from the accusation of scientific misconduct as presented by Calabrese. Based on his review of the video series and other documents, he provided what he defined as evidence of errors of fact, reasoning, and statistics to support his position. If true, Beyea's work would have the effect of impugning the reputation of Calabrese, myself, and the credibility of the HPS. This response intends to expose the issues with Beyea's commentary, including mischaracterization of Calabrese's work, lack of objectivity, misleading and factually incorrect statements, reliance on secondary sources, ignoring evidence specifically provided in the video series, and failing to address evidence provided in primary-sourced documents that contradict his conclusions. As a result, the reliability of Beyea's commentary is highly compromised, representing a serious lack of scholarship, research, and objectivity such that it should be retracted by Health Physics Journal based on the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. The HPS interview-style documentary reflects historical events based on primary-sourced documents as discovered by Calabrese. Scientific debate on this topic is necessary to progress our field, but the debate must be supported by facts with primary-sourced evidence and not driven by outdated public policies, logical fallacies, or ideology.

Reputation is of fundamental importance in science. It translates into the consideration, trust, and credibility that the scientific community exudes with the public. A growing number of events that undermine the quality and integrity of scientific research undermine the trust people place in it, facilitate the spread of an anti-scientific culture, and, above all, affect the development of new generations of scientists. Major categories of research integrity issues that emerged over the past decade were analysed, including citation rate, conflict of interest, predation, quality, reproducibility, translation, and transparency. Many scientists downplay the problem of declining ethics in biomedical research, confident that errors and fraud in scientific research will be exposed and eliminated sooner or later. They forget that this self-correcting process of science almost invariably takes years, during which costly and potentially serious consequences can arise. Furthermore, the intense competition that has always driven scientific research progress prevents many from undertaking clean-up efforts that could prove detrimental under current research evaluation systems. The time has come to adopt practical measures to mitigate the negative consequences of the deterioration of ethics in biomedical research. We outline possible interventions to address the main ethical issues that have emerged over the past decade.

We aimed to describe the trends and main reasons for study retraction in rheumatology literature. We reviewed the Retraction Watch database to identify retracted articles in rheumatology. We recorded the main study characteristics, authors' countries, reasons for retraction, time from publication to retraction, and trends over time. Reasons for retraction were classified as scientific misconduct, data/figure errors, or other reasons. Main article features and cause of retractions in rheumatology were compared with a sample of articles from other medical specialties. A total of 381 (79.5% original articles) rheumatology articles were retracted between 1989 and 2024. Most originated from Asia (68.5%), particularly China (50.7%). Scientific misconduct accounted for 75.3% of retractions, followed by data errors (14.9%) and other reasons (7.6%). Common misconduct types included data fabrication, fake peer review, duplication, and authorship issues. The median time from publication to retraction was 18 months (interquartile range 9-46), with one-third of articles requiring more than 36 months to be retracted. Time to retraction did not improve over time. The number of retractions steadily increased over time from 18 in 2000-2009, 117 in 2010-2019, and 207 in 2020-2023 (P < 0.001). Compared with other medical specialties, rheumatology exhibited similar retraction patterns, differing mainly in geographic distribution. Retractions in rheumatology have risen substantially, largely due to misconduct. This trend may reflect an increase in questionable research practices or improved detection. Strengthening early-career education, institutional oversight, and ethical research culture is essential to enhance transparency and integrity in the field.

The editor-in-chief plays a vital role in ensuring a journal’s scientific integrity and quality. Their primary responsibilities include managing the peer-review process, selecting qualified reviewers, and making final decisions on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection. In cases of scientific misconduct, conflicts of interest, authorship disputes, or ethical concerns, the editor has the ultimate authority. An editor’s vision for the journal shapes which manuscripts are reviewed and accepted, influencing the journal’s academic direction. While the role offers benefits such as scientific prestige, greater research visibility, and financial compensation, it also entails significant ethical responsibilities. Academic editor malpractice refers to any actions that violate ethical standards or compromises the integrity of the peer-review process. Editors typically serve five-year terms, often with the possibility of renewal, and are frequently evaluated based on the journal’s impact factor trend. However, their role extends beyond editorial duties—they act as gatekeepers, literary agents, accountants, mediators, and judges, navigating the complex relationships among authors, reviewers, and publishers. Editors of major journals hold an extraordinary amount of power within the publication process. They act as an umpire to judge the scientific research that is being published. Like an umpire, they must know about the sport and rules of play, but they themselves should never be in the competition. The problem is that this ideal is not always met. Whether the subject is the efficacy of an antihypertensive drug, the value of a new costly biomarker, or the origin of a pandemic, editors often make decisions for multi-parametric—and also extra-scientific—reasons. On this basis, some papers are published while others are declined, and the stream of scientific evidence can be polluted. In summary, the editor-in-chief is a cornerstone of academic publishing, ensuring that scientific quality and integrity are upheld while balancing multiple responsibilities.

Background Research misconduct in the academic community remains poorly understood among post-graduate dental students (PGDSs) in North Africa. Data on the knowledge of research misconduct (KoRM) level in this population is lacking. This brief report assessed KoRM of Tunisian PGDSs’. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Faculty of Dental Medicine of Monastir, involving 147 PGDSs registered in 2022. Students were recruited via email invitations and convenience sampling at a medical congress. A French survey ( i.e. ; Laval University quiz) with 11 questions on KoRM, offering three-choice answers (yes/no/maybe) was administered. Each correct answer received one point, and a total score below six indicated a low-level of KoRM. Results The mean±SD KoRM score of the 106 students who accepted to participate in the study was 4.4±1.8, indicating a low-level of KoRM. The majority of PGDSs (85.85%) demonstrated a low-level of KoRM. A comparison between subjective and objective assessments of KoRM levels revealed that a significant percentage of PGDSs underestimated their knowledge (62.26% vs. 85.85%, respectively). Conclusion North-African PGDSs have a low-level of KoRM. This emphasizes the need for further efforts to enhance awareness and promote better KoRM in this population.

Research misconduct practices like fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) are serious deviations from good research conduct, which have attracted attention in the literature due to the damage they can bring to science and society. However, less is known about the grey zone of researchers’ behaviours that deviate from responsible research conduct but do not fall under serious research misconduct practices. These are known as questionable research practices (QRPs), and they are believed to pose a no less serious threat to research integrity and science. Despite increasing research on the topic, the extent of the problem in different research fields and contexts is unknown. Using a sample of researchers working in Portuguese universities in six main fields of research (n = 1573), we report on QRPs that researchers admit to and how serious they perceive them to be, and on predictors of engagement in QRPs. We find that QRPs are widespread across all fields of research and seniority levels. Yet, younger, more prolific researchers, and those dismissing the seriousness of QRPs admitted to more QRPs. This suggests that some groups are at higher risk of misconduct and that there is a need for studying the motivations behind more susceptible groups to engage in QRPs.

As online data collection proliferates, healthcare researchers face challenges with fraudulent research participants. While substantial literature on preventing and detecting fraudulent responses in surveys is available, a dearth of nursing literature focuses on identifying and addressing fraudulent participation in online qualitative studies. The aims of this article are to highlight the researchers' experience with fraudulent research participants in an online qualitative study, enhance awareness of imposter participants, and propose strategies for identification of imposters' participation that threaten research validity. A qualitative, descriptive study was designed to explore nursing professional development (NPD) specialists' use of NPD practice judgment. Participants were recruited for online focus groups via email using a national association's email list. A $25 gift card was offered to participants. Suspected fraudulent participants led to the cancellation of focus groups and prompted a review of initial recruitment email responses. A framework for detecting fraudulent responses was developed based on this review. Out of 2,368 volunteers, 28 were invited to participate in 4 focus groups. During the initial focus group, participants did not use their cameras despite the facilitator's request, and they failed to provide meaningful responses. These suspicious actions prompted the facilitator to end the focus group. Subsequently the researchers investigated the phenomenon of imposter participants in qualitative research and analyzed their respondent's applications for signs of fraud. Indications of fraudulent responses to the call for volunteers included an unexpectedly large number of applications received in rapid succession, Gmail addresses with similar naming conventions, and common IP addresses originating outside the United States. Examination of recruitment survey responses, including volume, timing, and email structure, suggest potential "bot" use for volunteer survey completion. Qualitative researchers must implement measures to prevent fraudulent participants, enhance data scanning protocols to detect suspicious responses, and exclude fraudulent data to maintain research integrity.

This study reviews the evolution of the Fraud Triangle Theory (FTT) from 2010 to 2025 and examines how digital transformation and sustainability issues reshape its explanatory relevance. Using the PRISMA 2020 protocol, a Systematic Literature Review was conducted on 26 Scopus-indexed articles. Descriptive, content, and bibliometric analyses were applied to identify publication trends, methodological patterns, and theoretical developments. Results show that 76% of studies used qualitative or mixed methods, while only 24% employed quantitative or data-driven approaches. Research output peaked in 2022 with 12 publications, and the United States, China, and Indonesia accounted for 54% of contributions. Although FTT remains the dominant framework, 31% of studies integrated Agency Theory, Signaling Theory, or Critical Discourse Analysis. Fraud research increasingly addresses digital governance, ESG violations, and greenwashing. These findings position FTT as a dynamic model shaped by ethical, technological, and institutional forces, underscoring the need for hybrid behavior data analytical frameworks.

Fraudulent participation is a growing challenge in digital health research, particularly in online studies where duplicate identities, automated responses, and coordinated sign-ups can distort recruitment, compromise validity, and divert resources. Safeguards intended to prevent fraud might also risk excluding legitimate participants, raising concerns about sample representativeness and study generalizability. Although a wide range of technical and behavioral strategies exists, guidance is lacking on how to organize these methods and report outcomes consistently across studies. To address this gap, we introduce the Configure, Assess, Triage, Corroborate, and Hone (CATCH) framework, a hybrid fraud detection–mitigation model with actionable recommendations for investigators. CATCH begins with pre-study configuration to prepare for fraud mitigation and proceeds through systematic assessment of fraud risk, triage of candidates into risk categories, and corroboration of inconclusive cases, while honing strategies through ongoing monitoring. The framework emphasizes transparent documentation and reporting of actions and outcomes to facilitate comparability across studies and continuous methodological refinement. As fraudulent participation grows and emerging technologies act as both risks and solutions, CATCH can help guide investigators’ efforts to maximize data integrity in digital health research. By synthesizing existing fraud-mitigation strategies into a unified, staged framework, CATCH offers practical guidance for structuring decisions, documenting actions, and balancing data integrity with inclusivity.

Impact of Scientific Integrity and Misconduct on Data-intensive Enterprises

Research integrity has become a pressing concern in China, which accounts for a large share of global retractions. Yet little is known about how research integrity is understood and enacted within teaching hospitals. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 106 medical researchers across four Shanghai hospitals to assess their awareness, attitudes, and practices regarding scientific misconduct, as well as the role of integrity education. Most respondents reported familiarity with definitions of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and expressed strong disapproval of these behaviors. Nonetheless, 11%-22% indicated some degree of tolerance toward selective reporting or unjustified authorship, and firsthand reports of witnessed misconduct were uncommon. Participation in formal courses or lectures on research integrity was associated with higher knowledge scores and stronger agreement with ethical principles. These findings reveal a tension between high awareness and partial tolerance, highlighting the importance of exploring how institutional cultures and incentive systems may influence ethical behavior in future research and policy efforts.

The study analyzes repeated offenders of scientific misconduct among authors affiliated with Indian institutions. To do so, we searched the SCOPUS database for retraction notices of articles written or cowritten by such authors. Broad categories of reasons for retractions, institutions, and the types of retracted publications were discussed. Most retractions (12.5% out of 239 retractions analysed) were from authors affiliated with S.V. University. The main reasons behind retractions were ethical misconduct (139, 58.2%) and scientific distortion (43, 18%). About one in ten authors who have at least one article retracted had more than one retracted publication.

The study aimed to evaluate whether journals involved in retractions, particularly on retracted articles authored by researchers from Latin America, possess adequate integrity guidelines to address future incidents of scientific misconduct or questionable practices. Through a mixed-methods approach and a checklist, the analysis encompassed 36 journals with more than one retraction between 2002 and 2022, covering various fields with impact factors from 0.4 to 64.8. Only 14% of the journals fully met all proposed indicators, revealing significant disparities in best practices. Additionally, 25% lacked clear guidelines for managing retractions, and 61% exhibited insufficient transparency in handling misconduct allegations. The findings underscore local journals' difficulties in implementing rigorous editorial practices, particularly those affiliated with universities, often due to structural and financial constraints. The results highlight the importance of a proactive editorial commitment that extends beyond basic measures, such as textual similarity checks, to foster a more comprehensive and rigorous approach to research integrity.