Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education

Editorial Perspective: Misaligned incentives in mental health research - the case for Registered Reports

Current incentive structures reward mental health researchers for producing positive, novel, and clean results. This can promote questionable research practices which contribute to a distorted evidence base, in turn limiting progress in mental health research. Registered Reports (RRs) offer a solution to realign the incentives towards conducting high-quality, rigorous, and accurate studies, by preventing publication and reporting biases. However, the uptake of RRs in mental health research has so far been limited. This editorial perspective highlights the advantages of RRs for mental health research, before discussing potential challenges and how they can be addressed. Greater uptake of RRs in mental health research could help to promote a fairer research culture, limit publication bias and questionable research practices, and ultimately, improve understanding of mental health.

Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review

Promoting and implementing research integrity is considered the joint responsibility and effort of multiple stakeholders in the research community. We conducted a scoping review and analyzed 236 research articles and gray literature publications from biomedical sciences, social sciences, natural sciences (including engineering), and humanities that dealt with the factors that may positively or negatively impact the promotion and implementation of research integrity. Critical appraisal of evidence was performed for studies describing interventions aimed at research integrity promotion in order to provide insight into the effectiveness of these interventions. The results of this scoping review provide a comprehensive taxonomy of factors with positive or negative impact and their relatedness to individual researchers, research performing and funding organizations, and the system of science. Moreover, the results show that efforts for fostering and promoting research integrity should be implemented at all three levels (researcher, institution, system) simultaneously to deliver greater adherence and implementation of research integrity practices. Although various educational interventions aiming at research integrity promotion exist, we were not able to conclude on the effectiveness of explored interventions due to the methodological quality issues in the studies.

Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders' dishonest behavior?

With the development of science digitalization, it became possible to detect dishonest behavior. The increasing magnitude of predatory publishing has boosted scientific research on the topic. While studies on university leaders' impact concentrate mainly on its positive effects on organizational performance, to date, little is known about whether academic leaders can negatively influence the organizations they lead depending on their engagement in academic misconduct. Using a sample of Russian universities and their leaders from 2010-2020, I ask whether universities tend to adopt leaders' dishonest behavior. Specifically, I analyzed whether universities increase publications in potentially predatory journals after a leader with such a record enters the office. Relying on a culture theory of academic misconduct, I discuss the role-related factors that contribute to a leader's influence over employees. I focus on whether the leader's influence relates to external incentives for universities to publish more, the leader's career development type, or the leader's and university's research area. The findings demonstrate that the share of publications in potentially predatory journals tends to increase if a leader with such publications assumes office, especially if the university is research-oriented. The results suggest that academic reputation of a leader matters to the university's consequent misconduct.

Perceptions of publication pressure among Hungarian researchers: Differences across career stage, gender, and scientific field

Excessive publication pressure has been associated with detrimental aspects for individual researchers and scientific integrity but has not been well-studied in Eastern European countries. The aim of this study is to assess perceived publication pressure and its relationship with career stage, scientific field, and gender in Hungary. The survey included demographic questions, such as gender, age, scientific field, career stage, and the Revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQr). A total of 408 respondents completed the survey, 46% were female, and 54% were male. 45% are PhD students, 17% are postdocs or assistant professors, and 38% are associate or full professors. 31% are from the Biomedical Sciences, 39% from Natural Sciences, 18% from Social Sciences, and 12% from Humanities. Our results showed no significant disciplinary differences in perceived publication pressure. PhD students perceived a greater lack of resources than postdocs and professors. The same applied to postdocs and assistant professors when compared to associate professors. The findings also showed that female researchers perceive greater stress than male researchers. Our study highlights the need to improve mentoring during the development of early-career researchers. It also emphasizes the importance of organizational structures developing policies or strategies to address gender differences in academia.

Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers

This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.

Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns

Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practises designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practises are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practises (e.g. data sharing).

Which factors are associated with fraud in medical imaging research?

PURPOSE

To investigate the determinants of fraud in medical imaging research.

METHOD

This study analyzed aggregated survey data on scientific integrity completed by 877 corresponding authors who published in imaging journals in 2021. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the association of scientific fraud with the following variables: survey participants' age (<18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, or > 65 years), gender (male, female, or other), Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of their country of work (linear 0-100 scale), academic degree (medical doctor or other), academic position (none, fellow/resident, instructor/ lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, or other), and years of research experience (<5, 5-10, or > 10 years).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven survey participants (4.2%) indicated they had committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, and 223 (25.4%) indicated they had witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by departmental colleagues in the past 5 years. Instructors/lecturers were significantly more likely (P = 0.029) and fellows/residents were nearly significantly more likely (P = 0.050) to have committed scientific fraud, with odds ratios (ORs) of 4.954 and 5.156, respectively (Nagelkerke R² of 0.114). Survey participants > 65 years of age and survey participants working in less corrupt countries were significantly less likely (P = 0.022 and P = 0.044, respectively) to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud committed by their departmental colleagues, with ORs of 0.412 and 0.988 (per unit increase in CPI), respectively (Nagelkerke R² of 0.064).

CONCLUSIONS

Fraud in medical imaging research appears to be more common among junior faculty and in more corrupt countries.

Insufficient reporting of experimental variables as a cause for nonreproducibility in animal physiology? A case study

Nonreproducibility in scientific investigations has been explained by inadequately reporting methodology, honest error, and even misconduct. We hypothesized that, within the field of animal physiology, the most parsimonious explanation for nonreproducibility is inadequate reporting of key methodological details. We further hypothesized that implementation of relatively recently released reporting guidelines has positively impacted journal article quality, as measured by completeness of the methodology descriptions. We analyzed 84 research articles published in five primarily organismal animal physiology journals in 2008-2010 (generally before current guidelines) and 2018-2020. Compliance for reporting 34 variables referring to biology, experiments, and data collection was assessed. Reporting compliance was just ∼61% in 2008-2010, rising only slightly to 67.5% for 2018-2020. Only 21% of the reported variables showed significant differences across the period from 2008-2020. We conclude that, despite attempts by societies and journals to promote greater reporting compliance, such efforts have so far been relatively unsuccessful in the field of animal physiology.

The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions

The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has a series of complex impacts on academic inquiry. These systems have gradually spread into a wide range of locations and disciplines, including the humanities. The aim of this study is to examine their effects as perceived by philosophy and ethics researchers in Spain, a country where bibliometric indicators have long been used to evaluate research. The study uses a mixed approach combining quantitative and qualitative data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender, and area of knowledge. Results show that the evaluation system is widely perceived to affect university researchers in significant ways, particularly related to publication habits (document type and publication language), the transformation of research agendas and the neglect of teaching work, as well as increasing research misconduct and negatively affecting mental health. Although to a lesser extent, other consequences included increased research productivity and enhanced transparency and impartiality in academic selection processes.

Construction and Validation of the Research Misconduct Scale for Social Science University Students

The current study aims to construct and validate a measure of research misconduct for social science university students. The research is comprised of three studies; Study I presents the scale construction in three phases. In Phase I, the initial pool of items was generated by reviewing the literature and considering the results of semi-structured interviews. Phase II involved a psychometric cleaning of items, after which 38 items were retained. In Phase III, those 38 items were proposed to 652 university students, and data were exposed to exploratory factor analysis, which extracted a one-factor structure with 15 items and 55.73% variance. Study II confirmed the factorial structure of the scale using an independent sample (N = 200) of university students. Confirmatory factor analysis of the scale demonstrates a good model fit to the data with the one-factor structure established through the exploratory factor analysis. The scale exhibits good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.95. Study III involves validation of the scale, with evidence for convergent validity collected from a sample of university students (N = 200). The results reveal that the research misconduct scale has significant positive correlations with academic stress and procrastination and a significant negative correlation with academic achievement. The obtained convergent validity testifies that the scale can be considered a psychometrically sound instrument to measure research misconduct among social science university students.

Becoming metrics literate: An analysis of brief videos that teach about the h-index

Introduction

Academia uses scholarly metrics, such as the h-index, to make hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. These high-stakes decisions require that those using scholarly metrics be able to recognize, interpret, critically assess and effectively and ethically use them. This study aimed to characterize educational videos about the h-index to understand available resources and provide recommendations for future educational initiatives.

Methods

The authors analyzed videos on the h-index posted to YouTube. Videos were identified by searching YouTube and were screened by two authors. To code the videos the authors created a coding sheet, which assessed content and presentation style with a focus on the videos’ educational quality based on Cognitive Load Theory. Two authors coded each video independently with discrepancies resolved by group consensus.

Results

Thirty-one videos met inclusion criteria. Twenty-one videos (68%) were screencasts and seven used a “talking head” approach. Twenty-six videos defined the h-index (83%) and provided examples of how to calculate and find it. The importance of the h-index in high-stakes decisions was raised in 14 (45%) videos. Sixteen videos (52%) described caveats about using the h-index, with potential disadvantages to early researchers the most prevalent (n = 7; 23%). All videos incorporated various educational approaches with potential impact on viewer cognitive load. A minority of videos (n = 10; 32%) displayed professional production quality.

Discussion

The videos featured content with potential to enhance viewers’ metrics literacies such that many defined the h-index and described its calculation, providing viewers with skills to recognize and interpret the metric. However, less than half described the h-index as an author quality indicator, which has been contested, and caveats about h-index use were inconsistently presented, suggesting room for improvement. While most videos integrated practices to facilitate balancing viewers’ cognitive load, few (32%) were of professional production quality. Some videos missed opportunities to adopt particular practices that could benefit learning.

Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam

BACKGROUND

Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?

METHODS

From May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

The myth of 'older LGBT+' people: Research shortcomings and policy/practice implications for health/care provision

This article explores the implications of research which takes a collectivised approach to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans+ (LGBT+) ageing and which engages in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in doing so. Collectivised approaches to heterogenous identity-based groups address commonalities but often fail to address internal diversity, i.e. the differences between and among older LGBT+ people. This article explores six key problems associated with collectivised research: (1) Homogenising language and phrases; (2) Uneven numerical representation of sub-groups; (3) Thematic over-representation of sexuality; (4) Non-intersectional analyses; (5) Thematic under-representation of gender; and (6) Inaccurate reporting of data. Research which does not differentiate between 'older LGBT+' sub-populations, can provide policy-makers and practitioners with inaccurate and/or misleading information, resulting in services which meet the needs of some, but not all, older LGBT+ people. This article discusses how research can become more inclusive, intersectional and reliable.

How do academia and society react to erroneous or deceitful claims? The case of retracted articles’ recognition

Researchers give credit to peer-reviewed, and thus, credible publications through citations. Despite a rigorous reviewing process, certain articles undergo retraction due to disclosure of their ethical or scientific deficiencies. It is, therefore, important to understand how society and academia react to the erroneous or deceitful claims and purge the science of their unreliable results. Applying a matched-pairs research design, this study examined a sample of medicine-related retracted and non-retracted articles matched by their content similarity. The regression analysis revealed similarities in obsolescence trends of the retracted and non-retracted groups. The Generalized Estimating Equations showed that citations are affected by the retraction status, life after retraction, life cycle and the journals’ previous reputation, with the two formers being the strongest in positively predicting the citations. The retracted papers obtain fewer citations either before or after retraction, implying academia’s watchful reaction to the low-quality papers even before official announcement of their fallibility. They exhibit an equal or higher social recognition level regarding Tweets and Blog Mentions, while a lower status regarding Mendeley Readership. This could signify social users’ sensibility regarding scientific quality since they probably publicise the retraction and warn against the retracted items in their tweets or blogs, while avoiding recording them in their Mendeley profiles. Further scrutiny is required to gain insight into the sensibility, if any, about scientific quality. The study’s originality relies on matching the retracted and non-retracted papers with their topics and neutralising variations in their citation potentials. It is also the first study comparing the groups’ social impacts.

Ethical Consistency and Experience: An Attempt to Influence Researcher Attitudes Toward Questionable Research Practices Through Reading Prompts

Over the past couple of decades, the apparent widespread occurrence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in scientific research has been widely discussed in the research ethics literature as a source of concern. Various ways of reducing their use have been proposed and implemented, ranging from improved training and incentives for adopting best practices to systematic reforms. This article reports on the results of two studies that investigated the efficacy of simple, psychological interventions aimed at changing researcher attitudes toward QRPs. While the interventions did not significantly modify researchers’ reactions to QRPs, they showed differential efficacy depending on scientists’ experience, suggesting complexities in researcher psychology and the ethics of QRPs that merit further study.

Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing

The objective of medical research is the quest for scientific truth, as well as the communication of new knowledge to the medical society through publication of novel results. Journals publishing these results rely on the trust that all persons involved (authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers) remain honest, following the rules and ethics of scientific integrity. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and a wide spectrum of pitfalls and misconducts may occur, ranging from less serious violations of ethical rules to most serious ones. In ascending order of severity, these include borderline questionable practices (HARKing [Hypothesizing After the Results are Known] and hyping), redundant publications, authorship misconducts, plagiarism, and all types of fraud (data falsification or fabrication). Awareness of all these fraudulent practices is essential to mitigate misconduct in academic writing.