Suspected Research Misconduct Research Articles

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

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

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.

How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers

ABSTRACTChina has achieved a dramatic development in scientific research over the last few decades. However, just like many other countries, it has also seen a surge of scientific misconducts. With its expansion of international publications, retractions due to suspected research misconduct are also on the rise. A transcultural case study was conducted by investigating the perception of research misbehaviors by Chinese researchers compared to their Belgian Flemish colleagues. The study was designed to find out variation in research practices in different countries and to see how research was shaped and influenced by cultural contexts. An online questionnaire was sent to 3,236 researchers by e-mails and it received a response rate of 13.09%. They were asked to score 32 research misbehaviors on a 5-point scale. The findings suggested that compared to Flemish respondents, the Chinese had a significantly higher acceptance toward most research misbehaviors. To be more specific, the Chinese respondents felt less unacceptable toward behaviors violating such values as honesty, fairness, and verifiability than the Flemish, while their perceptions of behaviors that violated such values as responsibility, objectivity, and truth were not different compared to the Flemish. This case study implies that the Chinese research community is in an urgent need of training in responsible conduct of research and strong as well as sound guidelines for responsible research practices in place.

Similarity Analysis of Korean Medical Literature and Its Association with Efforts to Improve Research and Publication Ethics.

In the present study, the frequency of research misconduct in Korean medical papers was analyzed using the similarity check software iThenticate®. All Korean papers written in English that were published in 2009 and 2014 in KoreaMed Synapse were identified. In total, 23,848 papers were extracted. 4,050 original articles of them were randomly selected for similarity analysis. The average Similarity Index of the 4,050 papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 10.15% and 5.62%, respectively. And 357 (8.8%) had a Similarity Index of ≥ 20%. Authors considered a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% as suspected research misconduct. It was found that iThenticate® cannot functionally process citations without double quotation marks. Papers with a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% were thus individually checked for detecting such text-matching errors to accurately identify papers with suspected research misconduct. After correcting text-matching errors, 142 (3.5% of the 4,050 papers) were suspected of research misconduct. The annual frequency of these papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 5.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The decrease was associated with the introduction of CrossCheck by KoreaMed and the frequent use of similarity check software. The majority (81%) had Similarity Indices between 20% and 40%. The fact suggested that low Similarity index does not necessarily mean low possibility of research misconduct. It should be noted that, although iThenticate® provides a fundamental basis for detecting research misconduct, the final judgment should be made by experts.

Medical Research Misconduct: A Review Study on Duplicate Publications

Fraud and Misconduct broadly encompasses plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplication, salami, gift and ghost authorship. In 2010 in Singapore a second World Conference on Research Integrity attended by more than 50 countries resolved the definition of research conduct as “Researchers should report to the appropriate authorities any suspected research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, and other irresponsible research practices that undermine the trustworthiness of research, such as carelessness, improperly listing authors, failing to report conflicting data, or the use of misleading analytical methods.”

The third-party notification dilemma. Commentary.

AbstractIn their report in this supplement on research regulatory systems, Barbara Bierer and Mark Barnes note that, when research misconduct has been detected but not yet proven, the individual with institutional responsibility for oversight of research misconduct investigations “may determine that notification of relevant journals or professional societies and correction or full retraction of implicated papers or presentations is appropriate. In those cases, even when a finding of research misconduct per se has not been made or has not been explicitly stated, the journal, professional society, and their readers or members may draw their own conclusions as to what led to the retraction or correction.” This statement highlights an aspect of the reviewed regulatory schemes that creates vulnerability for institutions of higher education subject to the regulations: while, as the authors suggest, it may be “appropriate” to notify third parties (that is, journals, professional societies, and other academic institutions) of suspected research misconduct, there is no regulatory obligation to provide such a notification, and, in fact, providing early (or any) notification is contrary to the confidentiality provisions of the research misconduct regulations. Moreover, the institution—and individuals acting on behalf of the institution—may face legal exposure for notifying outside entities.

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Who is responsible for investigating suspected research misconduct?

Who is responsible for investigating suspected research misconduct?

Who is responsible for investigating suspected research misconduct?

Who is responsible for investigating suspected research misconduct?

Who will investigate suspected research misconduct?

Who will investigate suspected research misconduct?

Coping with fraud

~P,/ q ' h c C(:)I '~: Rcp.)lt~ ( " 1 9 9 8 It is 10 years, to the month, since Richard Lock, then editor of the BMJ, published the results of a personal survey, "Misconduct in medical research: does it exist in Britain?" Of 80 senior academics, "over half of the correspondents knew of some instance of medical misconduct-most encountered first hand, although a sizeable minority were well authenticated secondhand instances and there were a few rumours as well". Lock concluded that research fraud was flourishing in Britain .... and that action should be taken to tackle the problem by establishing an agency like the Office of Scientific Integrity in the USA "to allay professional and public alarm". Although the UK General Medical Council has been busy with fraudsters since Lock threw down the gauntlet, editors of biomedical journals know that the GMC sees only the tip of an iceberg, the magnitude of which is quite unknown. However, 1998 witnessed a notable gearing up of activity in relation to publication ethics and research fraud, much of which was driven by journal editors. Early in the year the BMJ ran a series of articles on "informed consent in medical research". The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) published its first report, which included the proceedings of its first meeting "Research misconduct: how shouldeditors respond?" and synopses of 22 cases that were being considered by the committee. To date the committee has considered 41 cases of suspected research misconduct. The report attracted attention in the daily press on both sides of the Atlantic, including a substantial piece in the New York Times. To coincide with the publication of the COPE report, the BMJ published a further series of articles on "Dealing with research misconduct in the UK". This included views from experts in the USA, Denmark, the UK, and a view from the Medical Research Council. Some authors favoured a move to set up an independent agency to investigate cases of suspected fraud whereas others were more cautious. As always, sensitivities about intrusion crept into the debate, together with concerns about the loss of professional self-regulation. There is a sense among editors that the available approaches to selfregulation are not working and that alternatives must be sought. The GMC, for example, has no jurisdiction over non-clinical scientists. As the summer progressed, the temperature continued to rise with a volume of ffAMA being devoted to the proceedings of the Prague Congress on biomedical peer review. The ethics of authorship, conflict of interest, bias, and quality of peer review were all debated. Retraction of papers was also considered. A search of Medline from 1966 to August 1997 revealed that 235 articles had been retracted, 86 of which were deemed to be due to