Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition

Chore or desire? Students' response to online lessons in scientific integrity

One of the main responsibilities of universities for their students, researchers, and society is to teach scientific integrity. Over the years, many universities-including RWTH Aachen University-have developed modules to impart the rules of good scientific practice. The current case study outlines the "Scientific Integrity" online course of RWTH Aachen University that has been offered to all master's students starting in October 2020; it explains to what extent the topic of scientific integrity meets genuine interest among students. Based on the online questionnaires that students were asked to fill out before starting the course (Q1) and after completing the course (Q2), it was verified that the implemented course achieved a satisfactory, but expandable acceptance. 57% of study participants initially (Q1) strongly affirmed to be interested in the topic; said percentage increased to 65.3% at the end of the course (Q2). While at the time of Q1 most students admitted that they would not take the course if it were voluntary, the majority of study participants came to the opposite conclusion after the course (Q2). The results suggest that the assessment of the relevance of the course may be dependent on familiarity with its contents.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices About Research Integrity and Scientific Misconduct Among the Faculty and Medical Postgraduates Working in Medical Colleges in North Karnataka and Central India: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey

Introduction Research integrity is an active adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research. Research or scientific misconduct stands like child abuse today. The survey of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded scientists calculated an absolute minimum of 2325 incidents of scientific misconduct per year. A report has also shown that Iran (6.60), India (5.68), Turkey (5.38), South Korea (3.59), and China (2.00) had higher ratios of publication misconduct to distrust data or interpretations than other countries. Hence, to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) of the research integrity/scientific misconduct among the faculty and postgraduates working in the medical colleges in North Karnataka (NK) and Central India (CI), this study has been carried out. Methods It is a web-based, cross-sectional study carried out with the use of Google Forms (Google, Mountain View, California). A pretested, unstructured questionnaire consisting of 25 questions was posted in the way of a link to the faculty and postgraduates working in various disciplines within the colleges of NK and CI either by using an e-mail or other social platforms like WhatsApp. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained in both regions before conducting the survey. Results A total of 146 participants responded to the e-questionnaire posted to them. Participants from CI displayed better awareness in several areas compared to NK. Citing articles and/ or materials that have not been read is the common questionable research practice (QRP) they have come across, as mentioned by participants in both groups. Discussion The study reveals a moderate level of knowledge and variable attitudes toward research integrity. The "publish or perish" culture is a major contributor to misconduct. Training and awareness programs are needed to enhance ethical research practices. Conclusion This study highlights the need for improved education and policy implementation to uphold research integrity in medical colleges, emphasizing the role of academic culture in shaping ethical research practices.

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.

Lessons from the Evolutionary Computation Bestiary

The field of metaheuristics has a long history of finding inspiration in natural systems, starting from evolution strategies, genetic algorithms, and ant colony optimization in the second half of the 20th century. In the last decades, however, the field has experienced an explosion of metaphor-centered methods claiming to be inspired by increasingly absurd natural (and even supernatural) phenomena-several different types of birds, mammals, fish and invertebrates, soccer and volleyball, reincarnation, zombies, and gods. Although metaphors can be powerful inspiration tools, the emergence of hundreds of barely discernible algorithmic variants under different labels and nomenclatures has been counterproductive to the scientific progress of the field, as it neither improves our ability to understand and simulate biological systems nor contributes generalizable knowledge or design principles for global optimization approaches. In this article we discuss some of the possible causes of this trend, its negative consequences for the field, and some efforts aimed at moving the area of metaheuristics toward a better balance between inspiration and scientific soundness.

Self-interestedness in Research Collaboration and its Association with Career Stage and Nature of Collaboration: A Survey of Zimbabwean Researchers

During collaboration in research, it may happen that some researchers become involved in behaviours that reflect so-called 'self-interestedness', which means that they pursue their personal interest or benefit without considering others. This study examined how researchers in Zimbabwe perceive instances of self-interestedness among research collaborators, and how these perceptions differ according to their career stage and the nature of collaboration. An online survey of researchers in Zimbabwe was conducted to gather information about six instances of self-interestedness among research collaborators. The results show that Zimbabwean researchers involved exclusively in national collaboration reported greater degrees of collaborator self-interestedness than Zimbabwean researchers involved in international collaboration. However, early-career researchers and established researchers did not differ significantly regarding their experiences of collaborator self-interestedness. Measures aimed at capacitating research organisations and research teams in developing countries in the African context, to counter collaborator self-interestedness, are recommended.

The Concept of Scaffold-Guided Bone Regeneration for the Treatment of Long Bone Defects: Current Clinical Application and Future Perspective

The treatment of bone defects remains a challenging clinical problem with high reintervention rates, morbidity, and resulting significant healthcare costs. Surgical techniques are constantly evolving, but outcomes can be influenced by several parameters, including the patient's age, comorbidities, systemic disorders, the anatomical location of the defect, and the surgeon's preference and experience. The most used therapeutic modalities for the regeneration of long bone defects include distraction osteogenesis (bone transport), free vascularized fibular grafts, the Masquelet technique, allograft, and (arthroplasty with) mega-prostheses. Over the past 25 years, three-dimensional (3D) printing, a breakthrough layer-by-layer manufacturing technology that produces final parts directly from 3D model data, has taken off and transformed the treatment of bone defects by enabling personalized therapies with highly porous 3D-printed implants tailored to the patient. Therefore, to reduce the morbidities and complications associated with current treatment regimens, efforts have been made in translational research toward 3D-printed scaffolds to facilitate bone regeneration. Three-dimensional printed scaffolds should not only provide osteoconductive surfaces for cell attachment and subsequent bone formation but also provide physical support and containment of bone graft material during the regeneration process, enhancing bone ingrowth, while simultaneously, orthopaedic implants supply mechanical strength with rigid, stable external and/or internal fixation. In this perspective review, we focus on elaborating on the history of bone defect treatment methods and assessing current treatment approaches as well as recent developments, including existing evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of 3D-printed scaffolds for bone defect regeneration. Furthermore, it is evident that the regulatory framework and organization and financing of evidence-based clinical trials remains very complex, and new challenges for non-biodegradable and biodegradable 3D-printed scaffolds for bone regeneration are emerging that have not yet been sufficiently addressed, such as guideline development for specific surgical indications, clinically feasible design concepts for needed multicentre international preclinical and clinical trials, the current medico-legal status, and reimbursement. These challenges underscore the need for intensive exchange and open and honest debate among leaders in the field. This goal can be addressed in a well-planned and focused stakeholder workshop on the topic of patient-specific 3D-printed scaffolds for long bone defect regeneration, as proposed in this perspective review.

NSF Fellows' perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia

There is increased concern about perverse incentives, quantitative performance metrics, and hyper-competition for funding and faculty positions in US academia. Recipients of the prestigious National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships (n = 244) from Civil and Environmental Engineering (45.5%) and Computer Science and Engineering (54.5%) were anonymously surveyed to create a baseline snapshot of their perceptions, behaviors and experiences. NSF Fellows ranked scientific advancement as the top metric for evaluating academics followed by publishing in high-impact journals, social impact of research, and publication/citation counts. The self-reported rate of academic cheating was 16.7% and of research misconduct was 3.7%. Thirty-one percent of fellows reported direct knowledge of graduate peers cheating, and 11.9% had knowledge of research misconduct by colleagues. Only 30.7% said they would report suspected misconduct. A majority of fellows (55.3%) felt that mandatory ethics trainings left them unprepared for dealing with ethical issues. Fellows stated academic freedom, flexible schedules and opportunity to mentor students were the most positive aspects of academia, whereas pressures for funding, publication, and tenure were cited as the most negative aspects. These data may be useful in considering how to better prepare STEM graduate trainees for academic careers.

Challenges, Successes, and the Future of Firearm Injury Prevention

Policy Points Firearm injury is a leading cause of death in the United States, with fatality rates increasing 34.9% over the past decade (2010-2020). Firearm injury is preventable through multifaceted evidence-based approaches. Reviewing past challenges and successes in the field of firearm injury prevention can highlight the future directions needed in the field. Adequate funding, rigorous and comprehensive data availability and access, larger pools of diverse and scientifically trained researchers and practitioners, robust evidence-based programming and policy implementation, and a reduction in stigma, polarization, and politicization of the science are all needed to move the field forward.

How to combine rules and commitment in fostering research integrity?

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for trustworthy research. Rules are important in setting RI standards and improving research practice, but they can lead to increased bureaucracy; without commensurate commitment amongst researchers toward RI, they are unlikely to improve research practices. In this paper, we explore how to combine rules and commitment in fostering RI. Research institutions can govern RI using markets (using incentives), bureaucracies (using rules), and network processes (through commitment and agreements). Based on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes, as part of the lifeworld, can legitimize systems - that is, market or bureaucratic governance modes. This can regulate and support RI practices in an efficient way. Systems can also become dominant and repress consensus processes. Fostering RI requires a balance between network, market and bureaucratic governance modes. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can be combined with bureaucratic rules. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated different governance modes, resulting in a normatively grounded and efficient approach to fostering RI. Based on this case, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment.

Ten simple rules for socially responsible science

Guidelines concerning the potentially harmful effects of scientific studies have historically focused on ethical considerations for minimizing risk for participants. However, studies can also indirectly inflict harm on individuals and social groups through how they are designed, reported, and disseminated. As evidenced by recent criticisms and retractions of high-profile studies dealing with a wide variety of social issues, there is a scarcity of resources and guidance on how one can conduct research in a socially responsible manner. As such, even motivated researchers might publish work that has negative social impacts due to a lack of awareness. To address this, we propose 10 simple rules for researchers who wish to conduct socially responsible science. These rules, which cover major considerations throughout the life cycle of a study from inception to dissemination, are not aimed as a prescriptive list or a deterministic code of conduct. Rather, they are meant to help motivated scientists to reflect on their social responsibility as researchers and actively engage with the potential social impact of their research.

Can Environmental Information Disclosure Enhance Firm Value?-An Analysis Based on Textual Characteristics of Annual Reports

This study examines the impact of environmental information disclosure quality on firm value for Chinese listed companies in heavily polluting industries from 2010 to 2021. By controlling for the level of leverage, growth, and corporate governance, a fixed effects model is constructed to test this relationship. Furthermore, this study analyzes the moderating effects of annual report text features, such as length, similarity, and readability, on the relationship between environmental information disclosure and firm value and the heterogeneous impact of firm ownership on this relationship. The main findings of this study are as follows: There is a positive correlation between the level of environmental information disclosure and firm value for Chinese listed companies in heavily polluting industries. Annual report text length and readability positively moderate the relationship between environmental information disclosure and firm value. Annual report text similarity negatively moderates the relationship between environmental information disclosure and firm value performance. Compared with state-owned enterprises, the impact of environmental information disclosure quality on the firm value of no-state-owned enterprises is more significant.

A new system of authorship best assessment

Purpose

The standard bibliometric indexes ("m-quotient "H-," "H2-," "g-," "a-," "m-," and "r-" index) do not considered the research' position in the author list of the paper. We proposed a new methodology, System of Authorship Best Assessment (SABA), to characterize the scientific output based on authors' position.

Material and Methods

Four classes S1A, S1B, S2A, and S2B include only papers where the researcher is in first, first/last, first/second/last, and first/second/second-last/last position respectively were used for the calculation of H-index and number of citations The system was tested with Noble prize winners controlled with researchers matched for H-index. The different in percentage between standard bibliometric index and S2B was calculated and compared.

Results

The percentage differences in Noble prize winners between S2B-H-index versus Global H-index and number of citations is very lower comparing with control group (median 4.15% [adjusted 95% CI, 2.54-5.30] vs 9.00 [adjusted 95% CI, 7.16-11.84], p < 0.001; average difference 8.7% vs 20.3%). All different in percentage between standard bibliometric index and S2B except two (H2- and m-index) were significantly lower among Noble prize compared with control group.

Conclusion

The SABA methodology better weight the research impact by showing that for excellent profiles the S2B is similar to global values whereas for other researchers there is a significant difference.

Perception of organizational climate by university staff and students in medicine and humanities: A qualitative study

Organizational climate and culture are important for research organizations because they foster research integrity and responsible conduct of research, reduce questionable research practices, and improve job satisfaction. The aim of our study was to explore how employees and students perceive organizational climate and its consequences in the university setting. We conducted semi-structured interviews with senior students and employees (teaching and non-teaching staff) from two different university schools: School of Medicine and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Participants were asked questions regarding perceived climate, working environment, and the role of the institution. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis approach. Three themes were identified. The first theme addressed the difference in the perception and understanding of organizational climate. The second theme dealt with institutional issues emanating from organizational climate. The third theme described the behavior of stakeholders in the formation of organizational climate. Organizational climate is important concept in academic organizations as it influences both employees, particularly early career researchers, and students. Institutional leadership can strongly influence organizational climate, which can in turn affect job and job satisfaction. Due to the importance of personal morality on everyday decision-making, virtue-based research integrity training could be useful in improving academic institutions' organizational climate.

“It is Very Difficult for us to Separate Ourselves from this System”: Views of European Researchers, Research Managers, Administrators and Governance Advisors on Structural and Institutional Influences on Research Integrity

Research integrity is fundamental to the validity and reliability of scientific findings, and for ethical conduct of research. As part of PRINTEGER (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research), this study explores the views of researchers, research managers, administrators, and governance advisors in Estonia, Italy, Norway and UK, focusing specifically on their understanding of institutional and organisational influences on research integrity.

A total of 16 focus groups were conducted. Thematic analysis of the data revealed that competition is pervasive and appeared in most themes relating to integrity. The structural frameworks for research such as funding, evaluation and publication were thought to both protect and, more commonly, undermine integrity. In addition, institutional systems, including workload and research governance, shaped participants’ day-to-day work environment, also affecting research integrity. Participants also provided ideas for promoting research integrity, including training, and creating conditions that would be supportive of research integrity.

These findings support a shift away from individual blame and towards the need for structural and institutional changes, including organisations in the wider research environment, for example funding bodies and publishing companies.

The Embassy of Good Science - a community driven initiative to promote ethics and integrity in research

The Embassy of Good Science ( https://www.embassy.science) aims to improve research integrity and research ethics by offering an online, open, 'go-to' platform, which brings together information on research integrity and research ethics and makes that information accessible, understandable, and appealing. It effectively organizes and describes research integrity and research ethics guidelines, educational materials, cases, and scenarios. The Embassy is wiki-based, allowing users to add -- when logged in with their ORCID researcher id -- new information, and update and refine existing information. The platform also makes the research integrity and research ethics community visible and more accessible in pages dedicated to relevant initiatives, news and events. Therefore, the Embassy enables researchers to find useful guidance, rules and tools to conduct research responsibly. The platform empowers researchers through increased knowledge and awareness, and through the support of the research integrity and research ethics community. In this article we will discuss the background of this new platform, the way in which it is organized, and how users can contribute.

The credibility crisis and democratic governance: how to reform university governance to be compatible with the nature of science

To address the credibility crisis facing many disciplines, change is needed at the institutional level. Science will only function optimally if the culture by which it is governed becomes aligned with the way of thinking required in science itself. The paper suggests a series of graduated reforms to university governance, to radically reform the operation of universities. The reforms are based on existing established open democratic practices. The aim is for universities to become consistent with the flourishing of science and research more generally.

On the psycho-emotional deficitisation of workers in the age of cognitive enhancement

Despite being the subject of public and scholarly debates for some time, the topic of cognitive enhancement remains theoretically under-developed in organisation studies. This is because the ‘dots’ still have to be ‘connected’ between macro-level phenomena (here, the therapeutic ethos and cognitive capitalism), and micro-level phenomena (in this case, cognitive abilities). In this essay, we use Fromm’s notion of social character to theorise dialectally about the interaction between these macro and micro-level phenomena. Doing so enables us to examine how the macro/micro interaction fosters to adoption of cognitive enhancement in the context of work, and what kinds of consequences might emerge from this. We propose the psycho-emotional deficitisation of workers as a central consequence of the aforementioned interaction, and define it as an internalised version of external ideals of what it means to be a productive worker under cognitive capitalism, which over time generates and reinforces the affective experience of being deficient. Our theorising around socially patterned defects of a cognitive kind has crucial ramification for our understanding of technology-mediated affective control at work and how human–technology interactions shape the subjectivities of workers towards greater self-inferiorisation vis-à-vis the perceived superiority of technology. We close by foreshadowing avenues for future research.

Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills

Human gene research generates new biology insights with translational potential, yet few studies have considered the health of the human gene literature. The accessibility of human genes for targeted research, combined with unreasonable publication pressures and recent developments in scholarly publishing, may have created a market for low-quality or fraudulent human gene research articles, including articles produced by contract cheating organizations known as paper mills. This review summarises the evidence that paper mills contribute to the human gene research literature at scale and outlines why targeted gene research may be particularly vulnerable to systematic research fraud. To raise awareness of targeted gene research from paper mills, we highlight features of problematic manuscripts and publications that can be detected by gene researchers and/or journal staff. As improved awareness and detection could drive the further evolution of paper mill-supported publications, we also propose changes to academic publishing to more effectively deter and correct problematic publications at scale. In summary, the threat of paper mill-supported gene research highlights the need for all researchers to approach the literature with a more critical mindset, and demand publications that are underpinned by plausible research justifications, rigorous experiments and fully transparent reporting.

Getting funded in a highly fluctuating environment: Shifting from excellence to luck and timing

Recent data highlights the presence of luck in research grant allocations, where most vulnerable are early-career researchers. The national research funding contributes typically the greatest share of total research funding in a given country, fulfilling simultaneously the roles of promoting excellence in science, and most importantly, development of the careers of young generation of scientists. Yet, there is limited supply of studies that have investigated how do early-career researchers stand compared to advanced-career level researchers in case of a national research grant system. We analyzed the Estonian national highly competitive research grant funding across different fields of research for a ten-year-period between 2013-2022, including all the awarded grants for this period (845 grants, 658 individual principal investigators, PI). The analysis was conducted separately for early-career and advanced-career researchers. We aimed to investigate how the age, scientific productivity and the previous grant success of the PI vary across a national research system, by comparing early- and advanced-career researchers. The annual grant success rates varied between 14% and 28%, and within the discipline the success rate fluctuated across years even between 0-67%. The year-to-year fluctuations in grant success were stronger for early-career researchers. The study highlights how the seniority does not automatically deliver better research performance, at some fields, younger PIs outperform older cohorts. Also, as the size of the available annual grants fluctuates remarkably, early-career researchers are most vulnerable as they can apply for the starting grant only within a limited "time window".

The use of online social media for the recruitment of people living with HIV in Spain and Latin America: Lessons from two studies

Various barriers make recruiting a difficult task for researchers, especially when recruiting people living with HIV (PLWH) or conducting longitudinal studies. Effective recruitment is crucial to the validity of studies, and in this regard, social media can come to aid, although researchers usually rely on paid advertisements. This paper describes the free social media strategies used for participant recruitment in two studies carried out with PLWH in Spain and Latin America. Study 1 was a cross-sectional study on the validation of two stigma scales with a 1-month retest. Study 2 was a longitudinal study exploring the mental health of newly diagnosed PLWH, with a second assessment after 6 months. Facebook posts, Twitter mentions, and discussion forums were used in both studies. Study 2 also recruited participants through a healthcare centre. In Study 1, 5-month recruitment yielded a sample of 458 PLWH, averaging 91.6 surveys/month and a 43% retention rate. In study 2, recruitment took 16 months, yielding a final sample of 145 newly diagnosed PLWH, 92 from the healthcare centre (5.75 surveys/month) and 53 from social media (3.31 surveys/month), with 95% and 60% retention rates, respectively. Participants in Study 2 did not differ in sociodemographic characteristics by recruitment method, except for the region of origin and financial difficulty (more diverse origin and greater difficulty emerged in social media participants). Greater psychological distress and lower personal and social resources were also found in social media participants. These data indicate that free social media recruitment is a feasible and effective tool for the recruitment of Spanish-speaking PLWH, although it is best used in combination with traditional methods for newly diagnosed PLWH and longitudinal studies.

Establishing open science research priorities in health psychology: a research prioritisation Delphi exercise

OBJECTIVE

Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology.

METHODS AND MEASURES

An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a 'long-list' of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3).

RESULTS

The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. 'To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?', 2. 'How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?', 3. 'How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?', 4. 'What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?' and 5. 'How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?'.

CONCLUSION

Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here.

Reckoning With Our Crisis: An Agenda for the Field of Social and Personality Psychology

The replication crisis and credibility revolution in the 2010s brought a wave of doubts about the credibility of social and personality psychology. We argue that as a field, we must reckon with the concerns brought to light during this critical decade. How the field responds to this crisis will reveal our commitment to self-correction. If we do not take the steps necessary to address our problems and simply declare the crisis to be over or the problems to be fixed without evidence, we risk further undermining our credibility. To fully reckon with this crisis, we must empirically assess the state of the field to take stock of how credible our science actually is and whether it is improving. We propose an agenda for metascientific research, and we review approaches to empirically evaluate and track where we are as a field (e.g., analyzing the published literature, surveying researchers). We describe one such project (Surveying the Past and Present State of Published Studies in Social and Personality Psychology) underway in our research group. Empirical evidence about the state of our field is necessary if we are to take self-correction seriously and if we hope to avert future crises.

Publication games: In the web of reciprocity

The present processes of research assessment, i.e. focusing on one or a few, related, scientometrics, foster questionable authorship practices, like gifting authorship to non-contributing people. An especially harmful one of these unethical practices is the formation of publication cartels, where authors offer gift authorship to each other reciprocally. Here, by developing a simple model and a simulation of the publication process I investigate how beneficial cartels can be and what measure can be used to restrict them. My results indicate that publication cartels can significantly boost members' productivity even if paper counts are weighted by the inverse of author number (the 1/n rule). Nevertheless, applying the 1/n rule generates conflicts of interest both among cartel members themselves and between cartel members and non-members which might lead to the self-purification of the academic publishing industry.

Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations

Competition and exposure to market forces can make it difficult for researchers to conduct their work with integrity. Some research organizations must acquire most of their funding through commissioned research, providing research services for paying clients. Studying such organizations can give insight into how researchers try, and sometimes fail, to balance academic norms with the need to secure funding. Based on interviews with social scientists in commissioned research organizations, this study shows how clients can exert an undue influence on the research process and how competition for funding can make it difficult to live up to academic quality standards. However, it also shows how commissioned research can be a source of identity and motivation. It involves a high degree of impact and access to good data, as clients commission research projects because they want knowledge to solve specific problems. Moreover, the participants discussed how they and the organizations where they worked learned from their experiences how to counteract the negative aspects of competition.

Analyzing factors associated with clinical trial publication in radiation oncology

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard of clinical research and are sought in the medical literature for the goal of providing quality care. To identify factors associated with successful or unsuccessful publication of clinical trials in radiation oncology, data on trial characteristics were collected from the National Institutes of Health database on clinicaltrials.gov. To assess studies that had adequate time to accrue, trials between 2000 and 2005 were extracted by filtering for “radiation oncology”. Studies were excluded if they were incomplete, observational, Phase 4, or lacked sufficient method descriptions. Included studies underwent independent samples t-tests and Pearson Chi-Square bivariate analyses. 538 studies were candidates for analysis of clinical trial characteristics. United States (US) origin, multi-center sites, government funding, Phase III status, and randomized allocation were factors associated with increased publication rate. The number of study arms, study length, and number of participants were significantly greater in published trials. The review's results demonstrate potential barriers or facilitators to publication, and they suggest that publication status may be influenced by geographic, financial, and temporal characteristics of clinical trials. Understanding trial background factors that may impact publication improve data visibility and clinical advancements for all.

Promoting trust in research and researchers: How open science and research integrity are intertwined

Proponents of open science often refer to issues pertaining to research integrity and vice versa. In this commentary, we argue that concepts such as responsible research practices, transparency, and open science are connected to one another, but that they each have a different focus. We argue that responsible research practices focus more on the rigorous conduct of research, transparency focuses predominantly on the complete reporting of research, and open science's core focus is mostly about dissemination of research. Doing justice to these concepts requires action from researchers and research institutions to make research with integrity possible, easy, normative, and rewarding. For each of these levels from the Center for Open Science pyramid of behaviour change, we provide suggestions on what researchers and research institutions can do to promote a culture of research integrity. We close with a brief reflection on initiatives by other research communities and stakeholders and make a call to those working in the fields of research integrity and open science to pay closer attention to one other's work.

Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals

Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006-2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors.

Removing systemic barriers to equity, diversity, and inclusion: Report of the 2019 Plant Science Research Network workshop "Inclusivity in the Plant Sciences"

A future in which scientific discoveries are valued and trusted by the general public cannot be achieved without greater inclusion and participation of diverse communities. To envision a path towards this future, in January 2019 a diverse group of researchers, educators, students, and administrators gathered to hear and share personal perspectives on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the plant sciences. From these broad perspectives, the group developed strategies and identified tactics to facilitate and support EDI within and beyond the plant science community. The workshop leveraged scenario planning and the richness of its participants to develop recommendations aimed at promoting systemic change at the institutional level through the actions of scientific societies, universities, and individuals and through new funding models to support research and training. While these initiatives were formulated specifically for the plant science community, they can also serve as a model to advance EDI in other disciplines. The proposed actions are thematically broad, integrating into discovery, applied and translational science, requiring and embracing multidisciplinarity, and giving voice to previously unheard perspectives. We offer a vision of barrier-free access to participation in science, and a plant science community that reflects the diversity of our rapidly changing nation, and supports and invests in the training and well-being of all its members. The relevance and robustness of our recommendations has been tested by dramatic and global events since the workshop. The time to act upon them is now.

Evaluation of the arts in performance-based research funding systems: An international perspective

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the evaluation of the arts within performance-based research funding systems (PRFSs). Previous literature on PRFSs has overlooked the arts and focussed primarily on outputs in relation to the sciences and humanities. We develop a typology of how artistic outputs are evaluated within 10 countries’ PRFSs, operating in Australia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, and the UK, and identify three different types of artistic evaluation systems. The study compares evaluation methods and provides a classification of quality criteria used by evaluation panels. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges specific to different types of systems.

Ranking of addiction journals in eight widely used impact metrics

Background and aims

Journal metrics assess impact upon the research literature, and are now used to assess individual researchers in hiring and promotion decisions. This study compared the ranking of addiction journals according to eight widely used metrics; assessed the correlations between journal rankings; and assessed changes over time in metric scores.

Methods

Data pertaining to the 2020 scores on eight metrics for 43 journals were obtained and the top 20 ranking in each compared and the correlations between rankings assessed. The Impact Factor was employed to assess changes over time.

Results

Ignoring the two categorization systems used by some metrics, 31 journals appeared in at least one metric top 20 and 11 in all eight. The top rank in each was occupied by one of three journals. Three-quarters of the correlations between rankings were above 6.0. The number of journals with an Impact Factor rose from 23 in 1997 to 38 in 2020, and the journals added tended to focus on addictions other than alcohol and drugs or have a specific focus.

Conclusions and discussion

The results indicate a concentration of journals at the top of the metrics and moderate to strong agreement between them, but almost three-quarters of journals appeared in at least one metric. The longitudinal data reflect both a broadening and specialization of the addiction field. The study limitations include exclusion of some journals and metrics.

Questionable Research Practices, Low Statistical Power, and Other Obstacles to Replicability: Why Preclinical Neuroscience Research Would Benefit from Registered Reports

Replicability, the degree to which a previous scientific finding can be repeated in a distinct set of data, has been considered an integral component of institutionalized scientific practice since its inception several hundred years ago. In the past decade, large-scale replication studies have demonstrated that replicability is far from favorable, across multiple scientific fields. Here, I evaluate this literature and describe contributing factors including the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), misunderstanding of p-values, and low statistical power. I subsequently discuss how these issues manifest specifically in preclinical neuroscience research. I conclude that these problems are multifaceted and difficult to solve, relying on the actions of early and late career researchers, funding sources, academic publishers, and others. I assert that any viable solution to the problem of substandard replicability must include changing academic incentives, with adoption of registered reports being the most immediately impactful and pragmatic strategy. For animal research in particular, comprehensive reporting guidelines that document potential sources of sensitivity for experimental outcomes is an essential addition.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada

The phenomenon of “publish-or-perish” in academia, spurred on by limited funding and academic positions, has led to increased competition and pressure on academics to publish. Publication pressure has been linked with multiple negative outcomes, including increased academic misconduct and researcher burnout. COVID-19 has disrupted research worldwide, leading to lost research time and increased anxiety amongst researchers. The objective of this study was to examine how COVID-19 has impacted perceived publication pressure amongst academic researchers in Canada. We used the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, in addition to Likert-type questions to discern respondents’ beliefs and concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on academic publishing. We found that publication pressure increased across academic researchers in Canada following the pandemic, with respondents reporting increased stress, increased pessimism, and decreased access to support related to publishing. Doctoral students reported the highest levels of stress and pessimism, while principal investigators had the most access to publication support. There were no significant differences in publication pressure reported between different research disciplines. Women and non-binary or genderfluid respondents reported higher stress and pessimism than men. We also identified differences in perceived publication pressure based on respondents’ publication frequency and other demographic factors, including disability and citizenship status. Overall, we document a snapshot of perceived publication pressure in Canada across researchers of different academic career stages and disciplines. This information can be used to guide the creation of researcher supports, as well as identify groups of researchers who may benefit from targeted resources.

Incentive Policies for Scientific Publications in the State Universities of Chile

Most state universities in Chile (15 out of 18) have monetary incentive policies for scientific publications, but they are based on criteria that do not necessarily aim to improve institutional performance in all disciplines. This work compares affinities and differences of these policies in three areas: (i) type of publications encouraged, (ii) beneficiaries, and (iii) monetary amounts per type of publication. It was found that the 15 universities encourage publications with WoS indexing, 13 do so for Scopus and SciELO, and 6 are open to other databases. Only seven institutions encourage the production of books and book chapters. As expected, the 15 universities direct the incentives to their academic staff, although with different requirements, six accept non-academic staff, and only one university considers its student body. In general, the highest monetary amounts are received by WoS publications, with differentiation by quartile or impact factor of the journal. All in all, there is a clear need to design incentive policies in universities that are more homogeneous and take into account the “quality” and “impact” of the research they publish based on different metrics that tend to provide robust analyses in the different areas of knowledge.

Measuring the developmental function of peer review: a multi-dimensional, cross-disciplinary analysis of peer review reports from 740 academic journals

Reviewers do not only help editors to screen manuscripts for publication in academic journals; they also serve to increase the rigor and value of manuscripts by constructive feedback. However, measuring this developmental function of peer review is difficult as it requires fine-grained data on reports and journals without any optimal benchmark. To fill this gap, we adapted a recently proposed quality assessment tool and tested it on a sample of 1.3 million reports submitted to 740 Elsevier journals in 2018-2020. Results showed that the developmental standards of peer review are shared across areas of research, yet with remarkable differences. Reports submitted to social science and economics journals show the highest developmental standards. Reports from junior reviewers, women and reviewers from Western Europe are generally more developmental than those from senior, men and reviewers working in academic institutions outside Western regions. Our findings suggest that increasing the standards of peer review at journals requires effort to assess interventions and measure practices with context-specific and multi-dimensional frameworks.

Automated citation recommendation tools encourage questionable citations

Citing practices have long been at the heart of scientific reporting, playing both socially and epistemically important functions in science. While such practices have been relatively stable over time, recent attempts to develop automated citation recommendation tools have the potential to drastically impact citing practices. We claim that, even though such tools may come with tempting advantages, their development and implementation should be conducted with caution. Describing the role of citations in science’s current publishing and social reward structures, we argue that automated citation tools encourage questionable citing practices. More specifically, we describe how such tools may lead to an increase in: perfunctory citation and sloppy argumentation; affirmation biases; and Matthew effects. In addition, a lack of transparency of the tools’ underlying algorithmic structure renders their usage problematic. Hence, we urge that the consequences of citation recommendation tools should at least be understood and assessed before any attempts to implementation or broad distribution are undertaken.

Training the Next Generation of Clinical Psychological Scientists: A Data-Driven Call to Action

The central goal of clinical psychology is to reduce the suffering caused by mental health conditions. Anxiety, mood, psychosis, substance use, personality, and other mental disorders impose an immense burden on global public health and the economy. Tackling this burden will require the development and dissemination of intervention strategies that are more effective, sustainable, and equitable. Clinical psychology is uniquely poised to serve as a transdisciplinary hub for this work. But rising to this challengerequires an honest reckoning with the strengths and weaknesses of current training practices. Building on new data, we identify the most important challenges to training the next generation of clinical scientists. We provide specific recommendations for the full spectrum of stakeholders-from funders, accreditors, and universities to program directors, faculty, and students-with an emphasis on sustainable solutions that promote scientific rigor and discovery and enhance the mental health of clinical scientists and the public alike.

Citizen Science in Deliberative Systems: Participation, Epistemic Injustice, and Civic Empowerment

In this paper, we bring together the literature on citizen science and on deliberative democracy and epistemic injustice. We argue that citizen science can be seen as one element of "deliberative systems," as described by Mansbridge et al. But in order to fulfil its democratic potential, citizen science needs to be attentive to various forms of exclusion and epistemic injustice, as analyzed by Fricker, Medina and others. Moreover, to tap the potentials of citizen science from the perspective of deliberative democracy, it needs to move towards a more empowered approach, in which citizens do not only deliver data points, but also, in invited or uninvited settings, participate in discussions about the goals and implications of research. Integrating citizen science into the deliberative systems approach embeds it in a broader framework of democratic theory and suggests the transmission of certain practical strategies (e.g., randomized sampling). It can also contribute to realism about both the potentials and the limits of citizen science. As part of a deliberative system, citizen science cannot, and need not, be the only place in which reforms are necessary for creating stronger ties between science and society and for aligning science with democratic values.

Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers

Scholars in science and technology studies and bibliometricians are increasingly revealing the performative nature of bibliometric indicators. Far from being neutral technical measures, indicators such as the Impact Factor and the h-index are deeply transforming the social and epistemic structures of contemporary science. At the same time, scholars have highlighted how bibliometric indicators are endowed with social meanings that go beyond their purely technical definitions. These social representations of bibliometric indicators are constructed and negotiated between different groups of actors within several arenas. This study aims to investigate how bibliometric indicators are used in a context, which, so far, has not yet been covered by researchers, that of daily newspapers. By a content analysis of a corpus of 583 articles that appeared in four major Italian newspapers between 1990 and 2020, we chronicle the main functions that bibliometrics and bibliometric indicators played in the Italian press. Our material shows, among other things, that the public discourse developed in newspapers creates a favorable environment for bibliometrics-centered science policies, that bibliometric indicators contribute to the social construction of scientific facts in the press, especially in science news related to medicine, and that professional bibliometric expertise struggles to be represented in newspapers and hence reach the general public.

Reproducibility, relevance and reliability as barriers to efficient and credible biomedical technology translation

Biomedical research accuracy and relevance for improving healthcare are increasingly identified as costly problems. Basic research data quality, reporting and methodology, and reproducibility are common factors implicated in this challenge. Preclinical models of disease and therapy, largely conducted in rodents, have known deficiencies in replicating most human conditions. Their translation to human results is acknowledged to be poor for decades. Clinical data quality and quantity is also recognized as deficient; gold standard randomized clinical trials are expensive. Few solid conclusions from clinical studies are replicable and many remain unpublished. The translational pathway from fundamental biomedical research through to innovative solutions handed to clinical practitioners is therefore highly inefficient and costly in terms of wasted resources, early claims from fundamental discoveries never witnessed in humans, and few new, improved solutions available clinically for myriad diseases. Improving this biomedical research strategy and resourcing for reliability, translational relevance, reproducibility and clinical impact requires careful analysis and consistent enforcement at both funding and peer review levels.

Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.

Time for change in research careers: We as research organizations doing everything we can for postdocs?: Are we as research organizations doing everything we can for postdocs?

Postdocs are at a challenging step in the career ladder and research organisations could do more to help them along the way.