Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers

Problem: Investigations regarding perceptions of the institutional research integrity climate in the Arab Middle East remain underexplored. Subjects: We surveyed faculty from three Egyptian universities. Method: We utilized the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) tool, which incorporates seven subscales that measure different aspects of the research integrity climate. Responses were obtained from a 5-point Likert scale. Findings: Of the 228 participants, the subscales 'Regulatory Quality' and '[Lack of] Integrity Inhibitors' received the highest mean scores, whereas the lowest scores pertained to 'Departmental Expectations,' 'Integrity Socialization,' and 'Responsible Conduct of Research´ indicating areas in need of improvement. Conclusions: Academic leaders should set fairer expectations for research and funding for their researchers, ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices, and promote effective RCR training and availability of RCR policies. We identify specific targeted interventions to enhance the research integrity climate within these institutions.

Current status of approaches of Universities in fostering research ethics in Thailand

Research ethics and integrity are essential topics that researchers should always be concerned about and are emphasized by academic communities around the world. However, there is currently little information about the mechanisms to regulate research ethics and integrity in Thailand. Therefore, the aims of this study were to determine the approaches that universities used to support research ethics and integrity in Thailand and also to identify the barriers that may obstruct the development. A questionnaire was used to explore the strategies about research ethics of 44 Thai universities. It was found that the first three mechanisms used to foster research ethics and integrity were establishment of institutional regulatory research committees (84%), conduction of research ethics training programs (77%), and policy adoption (68%). Interestingly, there was a significant association between the sizes of universities and establishment of institutional regulatory research committees. The medium and small universities might need more support to develop their own research ethics regulatory mechanisms. The results here indicated good signs for Thailand about preparing basic structures for fostering research ethics and integrity. The recognition of this current status could provide the useful information for future development of research integrity in Thailand.

Addressing researcher fraud: retrospective, real-time, and preventive strategies-including legal points and data management that prevents fraud

Researcher fraud is often easy and enticing in academic research, with little risk of detection. Cases of extensive fraud continue to occur. The amount of fraud that goes undetected is unknown and may be substantial. Three strategies for addressing researcher fraud are (a) retrospective investigations after allegations of fraud have been made, (b) sting operations that provide conclusive evidence of fraud as it occurs, and (c) data management practices that prevent the occurrence of fraud. Institutional and regulatory efforts to address researcher fraud have focused almost exclusively on the retrospective strategy. The retrospective approach is subject to controversy due to the limitations of post-hoc evidence in science, the difficulty in establishing who actually committed the fraud in some cases, the application of a legal standard of evidence that is much lower than the usual standards of evidence in science, and the lack of legal expertise by scientists investigating fraud. The retrospective strategy may be reliably effective primarily in cases of extensive, careless fraud. Sting operations can overcome these limitations and controversies, but are not feasible in many situations. Data management practices that are effective at preventing researcher fraud and unintentional errors are well-established in clinical trials regulated by government agencies, but appear to be largely unknown or unimplemented in most academic research. Established data management practices include: archiving secure copies of the raw data, audit trails, restricted access to the data and data collection processes, software validation, quality control checks, blinding, preregistration of data processing and analysis programs, and research audits that directly address fraud. Current discussions about data management in academic research focus on sharing data with little attention to practices that prevent intentional and unintentional errors. A designation or badge such as error-controlled data management could be established to indicate research that was conducted with data management practices that effectively address intentional and unintentional errors.

How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals

In the research integrity literature, funding plays two different roles: it is thought to elevate questionable research practices (QRPs) due to perverse incentives, and it is a potential actor to incentivize research integrity standards. Recent studies, asking funders, have emphasized the importance of the latter. However, the perspective of active researchers on the impact of competitive research funding on science has not been explored yet. Here, I address this issue by conducting a series of group sessions with researchers in two different countries with different degrees of competition for funding, from three scientific fields (medical sciences, natural sciences, humanities), and in two different career stages (permanent versus temporary employment). Researchers across all groups experienced that competition for funding shapes science, with many unintended negative consequences. Intriguingly, these consequences had little to do with the type of QRPs typically being presented in the research integrity literature. Instead, the researchers pointed out that funding could result in predictable, fashionable, short-sighted, and overpromising science. This was seen as highly problematic: scientists experienced that the 'projectification' of science makes it more and more difficult to do any science of real importance: plunging into the unknown or addressing big issues that need a long-term horizon to mature. They also problematized unintended negative effects from collaboration and strategizing. I suggest it may be time to move away from a focus on QRPs in connection with funding, and rather address the real problems. Such a shift may then call for entirely different types of policy actions.

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.

Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal

The retraction of health sciences publications is a growing concern. To understand the patterns in a particular country-context and design specific measures to address the problem, it is important to describe and characterize retractions. We aimed to assess the evolution of health science retractions in Brazil and Portugal and to describe their features. We conducted a cross-sectional study including all health sciences retracted articles with at least one author affiliated to a Portuguese or Brazilian institution identified through Retraction Watch database. A total of 182 retracted articles were identified. The number of retractions increased over time, but the proportion related to the whole of publications remained stable. A total of 50.0% and 60.8% of the Portuguese and Brazilian retracted articles, respectively, were published in first and second quartile journals. Scientific misconduct accounted for 60.1% and 55.9% of retractions in Brazil and Portugal. In both countries, the most frequent cause of misconduct was plagiarism. The time from publication to retraction decreases as the journal quartile increases. The retraction of health sciences articles did not decrease over time in Brazil and Portugal. There is a need to develop strategies aimed at preventing, monitoring and managing scientific misconduct according to the country context.

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.

Questionable research practices in competitive grant funding: A survey

There has been a surge of interest in research integrity over the last decade, with a wide range of studies investigating the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs). However, nearly all these studies focus on research design, data collection and analysis, and hardly any empirical research has been done on the occurrence of QRPs in the context of research funding. To fill this gap, we conducted a cross-sectional pre-registered survey of applicants, reviewers and panel members from the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO), one of the main funding agencies in Belgium. We developed a bespoke survey and further refined it through feedback from experienced researchers and a pilot study. We asked how often respondents had engaged in a series of QRPs over the last ten years. A total of 1748 emails were sent, inviting recipients to participate in the survey, complemented by featuring the survey in the FWO newsletter. This resulted in 704 complete responses. Our results indicate that such QRPs are remarkably prevalent. Of the 496 participants who answered both the applicant and reviewer track, more than 60% responded that they engaged regularly in at least one of such practices, and around 40% indicated that they engaged at least occasionally in half of the QRPs queried. Only 12% reported not to have engaged in any of the QRPs. Contrary to our hypotheses, male respondents did not self-report to engage in the QRPs more often than female respondents, nor was there an association between the prevalence of QRPs and self-reported success rate in grant funding. Furthermore, half of the respondents indicated that they doubted the reliability of the grant peer review process more often than not. These results suggest that preventive action is needed, and provide new reasons to reconsider the practice of allocating research money through grant peer review.

A Survey Study on Knowledge and Attitude Toward the Ethics Committee and Research Ethical Practices Among Researchers From Kuwait

The integrity of research findings and the safety of participants who voluntarily consent to participate in research studies must be assured through ethical approaches. Additionally, ethical guidelines and the ethics committee protect participants from unfair practices by the research team. Therefore, this study aims to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward the ethics committee and research ethical practices among the researchers of a diabetes institute in Kuwait. An anonymous survey was conducted through an online questionnaire using Microsoft Forms. The study had a response rate of 86%. Among the 55 participants in this study, 43 (78%) had ethics training. Researchers involved in more than four research projects were shown to have a much higher awareness of the ethics committee and its role than researchers involved in no projects. Approximately 90% of researchers had training in research ethics and were knowledgeable about informed consent forms and assent, as well as additional protections for vulnerable populations. Ninety-eight percent of respondents were of the view that an ethics committee was necessary. Our study concluded that most of the researchers at the institute were aware of the role of the ethics committee, and ethical principles. However, we recommend that continuous and customized training on research ethics should be provided.

Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals

We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct.

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).

An emerging field: An evaluation of biomedical graduate student and postdoctoral education and training research across seven decades

Biomedical graduate student and postdoctoral education and training research has expanded greatly over the last seven decades, leading to increased publications and the emergence of a field. The goal of this study was to analyze this growth by performing a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis using a systematic approach to better understand the publishing trends (including historical vs. emerging themes and research priorities); depth, structure, and evidence-basis of content; and venues for publication. The analysis documented a dramatic increase in biomedical trainee-related publications over time and showed that this area of research is maturing into its own independent field. Results demonstrated that the most frequently published article types in this field are shorter editorial and opinion pieces, and that evidence-based articles are less numerous. However, if current trends continue, projections indicate that by the year 2035, evidence-based articles will be the dominating article type published in this field. Most frequently published topics included career outcomes and workforce characterization and professional development. In recent years, the most cited articles were publications focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, career outcomes and workforce characterization, and wellness. This study also shows that although a small subset of journals publishes most of this literature, publications are distributed diffusely across a wide range of journals and that surprisingly 68% of these journals have published only a single article on the topic. Further, we noted that the assignment of author- and index-supplied keywords was variable and inconsistent and speculate that this could create challenges to conducting comprehensive literature searches. Recommendations to address this include establishing standard keyword assignment criteria and proposing new index-supplied keywords to improve accessibility of research findings. These changes will be important for bringing visibility of this literature to our community, institutional leaders, national trainee organizations, and funding agencies.

Bullying, harassment, and discrimination of musculoskeletal researchers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: an international study

PURPOSE

Bullying, harassment, and discrimination (BHD) are prevalent in academic, scientific, and clinical departments, particularly orthopedic surgery, and can have lasting effects on victims. As it is unclear how BHD affects musculoskeletal (MSK) researchers, the following study assessed BHD in the MSK research community and whether the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused hardships in other industries, had an impact.

METHODS

A web-based anonymous survey was developed in English by ORS Spine Section members to assess the impact of COVID-19 on MSK researchers in North America, Europe, and Asia, which included questions to evaluate the personal experience of researchers regarding BHD.

RESULTS

116 MSK researchers completed the survey. Of respondents, 34.5% (n = 40) focused on spine, 30.2% (n = 35) had multiple areas of interest, and 35.3% (n = 41) represented other areas of MSK research. BHD was observed by 26.7% (n = 31) of respondents and personally experienced by 11.2% (n = 13), with mid-career faculty both observing and experiencing the most BHD. Most who experienced BHD (53.8%, n = 7) experienced multiple forms. 32.8% (n = 38) of respondents were not able to speak out about BHD without fear of repercussions, with 13.8% (n = 16) being unsure about this. Of those who observed BHD, 54.8% (n = 17) noted that the COVID-19 pandemic had no impact on their observations.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to address the prevalence and determinants of BHD among MSK researchers. MSK researchers experienced and observed BHD, while many were not comfortable reporting and discussing violations to their institution. The COVID-19 pandemic had mixed-effects on BHD. Awareness and proactive policy changes may be warranted to reduce/eliminate the occurrence of BHD in this community.

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.

Research integrity guidelines and safeguards in Brazil

Brazilian research output has been growing annually, and so have its domestic and international research collaborations. Accordingly, it is essential to harmonize research integrity guidance and regulations to ensure research quality. Therefore, this study aims to collect and analyze guidance documents on research integrity from Brazilian research performing organizations (RPO). Research integrity guidance documents, regulations, and policies were retrieved from 60 randomly selected universities in Brazil. The search was conducted via the universities' websites and confirmed by e-mail. The documents were analyzed based on inductive content analysis. Relevant documents from 20 RPOs were identified. 28% of the included institutions have developed their own guidelines or adopted some guidance document on research integrity. Best practices, misconduct and misbehaviors, principles, and institutional policies regarding sanctions differ between universities. The RPOs where research integrity guidance documents could be identified are concentrated mainly in the southeastern and southern areas. The number and distribution heterogeneity highlights the need to increase awareness and create regulatory documents on research integrity in Brazilian universities. Further Research Performing and Funding Organizations' initiatives are needed to foster research integrity in Brazil and harmonize it with international standards.

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.

“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.

[Can we save biomedical research from the managerial model?]

This article reflects on the disastrous effects that the managerial model had on contemporary biomedical research. It is argued that the time has come to reinvent an "antibureaucratic laboratory" which favors decision-making based on the intrinsic values of the researcher rather than the need to please external committees. Towards achieving this goal, governmental agencies should rely less on peer review and adopt new funding mechanisms. It is also predicted that the advent of the antibureaucratic laboratory" will only come at the cost of a revolution in the mentalities of all those involved in research.

Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine

The extent to which basic medical research is translated into clinical practice is a topic of interest to all stakeholders. In this study, we assessed the clinical translation intensity of papers published by scientists who have made outstanding contributions to the field of basic medicine (Lasker Prize winners for Basic Medical Research). Approximate Potential for Translation (APT), Translational science scores (TS), and Citations by clinical research (Cited by Clin.) were analyzed as dependent variables. A traditional citation indicator was used as a reference (relative citation ratio, RCR). In order to examine the correlation between these different indicators and the characteristics of the paper, the author, and the institution. we used nonparametric tests, Spearman correlations, ordinal least squares regressions (OLS), quantile regressions, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression methods. We found that among the basic medical research papers published by Lasker Basic Medicine Award winners, (1) 20% are cited by clinical research; 11.6% of the papers were more valuable for clinical research than basic research; 12.8% have a probability of more than 50% to be cited in future clinical studies; (2) Spearman correlations were conducted among APT, TS, Cited by Clin., RCR, and all of the other continuous variables. There is a significant, positive, low to moderate correlation between APT, TS, and Cited by Clin (APT and TS: r = 0.549, p < 0.01; APT and Cited by Clin: r = 0.530, p < 0.01; TS and Cited by Clin: r = 0.383, p < 0.01). However, the relationship between RCR and the three indicators of clinical translation intensity was not consistent. APT was positively correlated with RCR (r = 0.553, p < 0.01). Cited by Clin. is weakly positively correlated with RCR (r = 0.381, p < 0.01). There is almost no correlation between TS and RCR (r = 0.184, p < 0.01). (3) Publication age, primary research paper, multidisciplinary science, number of disciplines, authors, institutions, funded projects, references, length of the title, length of paper, physical age, gender, nationality, institutional type, Nobel Prize have a significant relationship with 1 to 3 types of clinical translation intensity measures. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine, we came to the following conclusions: the three indicators, APT, TS and Cited by Clin., measured the clinical translation intensity of the papers from different perspectives. They are both related to each other and have their own characteristics. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine, characteristics at the paper, winner, and institution level significantly correlated with the measures of clinical translation intensity. Gender effect on the clinical translation intensity of papers was confirmed. Traditional citation-based indicators and translational-focused indicators measure academic impact and clinical impact respectively. There is a certain degree of disconnect between them. Two types of indicators should be used in combination in future assessments of basic medical research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-023-04634-4.

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals.

PARTICIPANTS

All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.

RESULTS

1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.

CONCLUSIONS

Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.

A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction

Previous research has found authors of retracted publications responsible for the vast majority of retractions. Although considerable research attention has been given to reasons for retraction, few studies have examined author-related reasons from a cross-disciplinary and a severity-based perspective. Drawing on data from the Web of Science Core Collection, this study examined 6,861 retraction notices published before 2020, in which authors were identified as the sole entities responsible for retraction. A close scrutiny identified 17 distinct reasons for retraction, with the three most frequent (i.e., plagiarism/self-plagiarism, unreliable data/findings, and data fabrication/falsification) accounting for 78.87% of the retraction notices. Based on the severity of the culpable actions involved, the 17 reasons were grouped into five categories: blatant misconduct (disclosed in 61.08% of the retraction notices), inappropriate conduct (18.18%), questionable conduct (0.95%), honest error (4.62%), and uncategorizable conduct (30.52%). Retraction notices in hard disciplines (i.e., natural sciences) were found more likely than those in soft disciplines (i.e., social sciences, arts, and the humanities) to disclose authorship issues, unreliable data/findings, uncategorizable conduct, and inappropriate conduct. Retraction notices in soft disciplines were more likely than those in hard disciplines to disclose unspecified misconduct and blatant misconduct.

Research integrity guidelines in the academic environment: The context of Brazilian institutions with retracted publications in health and life sciences

Although research misconduct is responsible for most retractions in health and life sciences from authors affiliated with Brazilian institutions, there are few studies evaluating retraction notices and research misconduct in the country. Understanding the form of research misconduct may share light on the weaknesses and strengths of individual, organizational, and structural factors toward the implementation of a research integrity culture. This review on policies and practices aims to access the available information from research integrity offices and the guidelines from Brazilian funding institutions and universities who were involved in retractions in health and life science publications based on a previously published systematic review. Additionally, we summarize the available guidelines and policies for research integrity in the country. Additionally, we searched publicly available guidelines and offices for research integrity. In total, 15 institutions were analyzed: five funding agencies and 10 universities. Approximately 40% of the funding agencies promoted local research, and 60% promoted national research. Considering national funding agencies, 66% had the commission on research integrity. Approximately 30% of the universities do not have the official office for research integrity or any publicly available guidelines. Most institutions involved in retractions due to some form of research misconduct. Brazilian institutions involved in publication retractions lack instruments to prevent, supervise, and sanction research misconduct. Institutions of the country have insufficiently developed a system to promote and sustain research integrity practices. Nevertheless, there is a positive movement of researchers who are engaged in the investigation of research integrity, policy creation and training. This study emphasizes increased influence of Brazilian scientific collaboration and production globally as well as the impact of retractions in medical sciences. In contrast, it addresses the need for clear research integrity policies to foster high-quality and trustworthy research.

Academic integrity among medical students and postgraduate trainees in the teaching hospitals of South Punjab Pakistan

This study investigated the topic of the academic integrity among medical students and postgraduate trainees in the teaching hospitals of South Punjab, Pakistan. A cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 318 medical students and postgraduate trainees of teaching hospitals. The results found that medical students of pre-clinical years engaged in unethical behaviour, that is, exam cheating and plagiarism to cope with internal and external evaluation and the range of subjects needed to be studied. For postgraduate trainees, results showed trainees unintentionally engaged in the practice of plagiarism due to lack of understanding about what constitutes plagiarism, coupled with externally perceived pressures associated with expectations of research publication, promotions and tenured positions. To address these concerns, it is recommended that information literacy sessions for undergraduate and postgraduate medical students on plagiarism prevention and ethical practice be designed and facilitated by medical librarians in collaboration of faculty members.

When publication metrics become the fetish: The research evaluation systems’ relationship with academic work engagement and burnout

In this article, we focused on the nature of the relationship between research evaluation systems that are based on metrics and those that are based on a critical comprehensive judgment of scientific content with researchers’ burnout and work engagement. The research was conducted on a sample of 1,191 Polish researchers in the context of a highly metricized research evaluation system. Our contribution to the field of research evaluation is fourfold. First, we provide empirical support for the recent call for more nuanced views on publication metrics in research evaluation, showing that evaluations lacking in the judgment of scientific content are associated with higher demands and lower job resources. Second, our study focuses the attention of various policymakers on the fact that performance measurement should not be confused with performance management and that thoughtless use of performance publication metrics might lead to research performance deterioration instead of improvement. Third, our findings illustrate the tensions between different views on publication metrics as means of research evaluation; this tension might be observed among researchers and their supervisors but also within the research community as a whole. Fourth, our article may inspire further research of evaluation systems, as we design measures of demands and resources generated by the evaluation system based on Job Demands-Resources theory. Moreover, based on the Leiden Manifesto and Royal Society Resume for researchers, we have validated an evaluation based on a judgment scale that might be used in further research and practical settings to audit research evaluation systems.

Do biomedical researchers differ in their perceptions of plagiarism across Europe? Findings from an online survey among leading universities

BACKGROUND

Existing research on perceptions of plagiarism and cultural influences mainly focuses on comparisons between the Western World and the Eastern World. However, possible differences within the Western World have hardly been assessed, especially among biomedical academics. The authors compared perceptions of plagiarism among European biomedical researchers who participated in an online survey.

METHODS

The present work is based on the data collected in a previous online survey done in 2018 among biomedical researchers working in leading European and Chinese universities. Respondents based in Europe were grouped into three geographical regions (northern Europe, southern Europe and northwestern Europe) and their responses were analyzed using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic factors.

RESULTS

Data were available from 810 respondents (265 northern Europe, 101 southern Europe, 444 northwestern Europe). In addition to their generally similar responses, different perceptions of plagiarism were observed among respondents in the three European regions. In summary, among the three European regions, Nordic respondents identified the most types of practices as plagiarism. Compared to the southern respondents, Nordic and northwestern respondents were more likely to consider less evident practices as plagiarism, such as Rephrasing another person's work without crediting the source [aOR_N|S 1.99 (95%CI 1.08;3.67), aOR_S|NW 0.50 (95%CI 0.28;0.91)] and With permission from the original author, using another's text without crediting the source [aOR_N|S 3.16 (95%CI 1.90;5.25), aOR_S|NW 0.26 (95%CI 0.16;0.42)]. In contrast, the southern respondents were the most inclined to recognize recycling of one's previously rejected research proposal as plagiarism.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of a generally similar response pattern, the present study indicates different perceptions of plagiarism among European biomedical researchers. These intra-European differences should be considered when addressing plagiarism.

Reproducibility in the Social Sciences

Concern over social scientists' inability to reproduce empirical research has spawned a vast and rapidly growing literature. The size and growth of this literature make it difficult for newly interested academics to come up to speed. Here, we provide a formal text modeling approach to characterize the entirety of the field, which allows us to summarize the breadth of this literature and identify core themes. We construct and analyze text networks built from 1,947 articles to reveal differences across social science disciplines within the body of reproducibility publications and to discuss the diversity of subtopics addressed in the literature. This field-wide view suggests that reproducibility is a heterogeneous problem with multiple sources for errors and strategies for solutions, a finding that is somewhat at odds with calls for largely passive remedies reliant on open science. We propose an alternative rigor and reproducibility model that takes an active approach to rigor prior to publication, which may overcome some of the shortfalls of the postpublication model.

Under pressure: The extent and distribution of perceived pressure among scientists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

While it has been stressed repeatedly that academics nowadays have come to face extensive pressure, the extent and distribution of pressure to publish and to secure third-party funding has not been systematically investigated on a large scale. Based on the Zurich Survey of Academics, a representative large-scale web survey among academics working at universities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), which measures perceived pressure using six-point Likert scales, this article examines the extent and distribution of pressure to publish and to attract external funding. Specifically, we examine differences in perceived pressure across countries, disciplines, types of higher education institutions, sociodemographic characteristics (academic status, age, gender, relationship status, number of children), and working conditions (non-tenured/tenured, time available for research). It is shown that researchers in the DACH region feel a high level of pressure, with the pressure to publish being slightly greater than the pressure to attract external funding. The results also suggest that perceived pressure is not evenly distributed among countries and groups of academics. Specifically, the results suggest that (1) more secure and permanent (tenured) positions should be created and (2) the high-performance culture should be addressed in at least some disciplines if excessive pressure is to be alleviated. The findings also suggest that further investments should be made (3) to promote equal career opportunities for women and men and (4) to ensure that scientists have sufficient time for their research and are not too occupied with other responsibilities, such as teaching or administrative duties.

Essential signals in publication trends and collaboration patterns in global Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE)

Amid an increasingly demanding research environment, there has been a growing interest in studies concerning Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE). Between 1990 and 2020, over 9700 publications were published to address problematic research conduct such as falsification, plagiarism, and related protocols and standards. In this work, country-level trends and collaborative structures are examined with respect to economic group. Our results showed that RIRE publications are predominantly led by the West, with North America and Western Europe contributing the most. While there is interest within growing economies such as China, the pace is not comparable to its overall publications. However, international collaborations on RIRE grew to account for nearly 30% of all publications on the subject in 2020. Although there is a stronger preference for high income countries to collaborate with other high income countries, we observe a rise in partnerships between high-/middle-income and middle-/lower-income co-authorship pairs in the last decade. These trends point to a maturing global community with distributed knowledge transfer, towards more unified international standards for research ethics and integrity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04400-y.

Do individual and institutional predictors of misconduct vary by country? Results of a matched-control analysis of problematic image duplications

Pressures to publish, perverse incentives, financial interest and gender are amongst the most commonly discussed risk factors for scientific misconduct. However, evidence of their association with actual data fabrication and falsification is inconclusive. A recent case-controlled analysis of articles containing problematic image duplications suggested that country of affiliation of first and last authors is a significant predictor of scientific misconduct. The same analysis found null or negative associations with individual proxies of publication rate, impact and gender. The latter findings, in line with previous evidence, failed to support common hypotheses about the prevalence and causes of misconduct, but country-level effects may have confounded these results. Here we extend and complete previous results by comparing, via matched-controls analysis, articles from authors in the same country. We found that evidence for individual-level risk factors may be significant in some countries, and null or opposite in others. In particular, in countries where publications are rewarded with cash incentives, and especially China, the risk of problematic image duplication was higher for more productive, more frequently cited, earlier-career researchers working in lower-ranking institutions, in accordance with a "misaligned incentives" explanation for scientific misconduct. However, a null or opposite pattern was observed in all other countries, and especially the USA, UK and Canada, countries where concerns for misaligned incentives are commonly expressed. In line with previous results, we failed to observe a statistically significant association with industry funding and with gender. This is the first direct evidence of a link between publication performance and risk of misconduct and between university ranking and risk of misconduct. Commonly hypothesised individual risk factors for scientific misconduct, including career status and productivity, might be relevant in countries where cash-reward policies generate perverse incentives. In most scientifically active countries, however, where other incentives systems are in place, these patterns are not observed, and other risk factors might be more relevant. Policies to prevent and correct scientific misconduct may need to be tailored to a countries' or institutions' specific context.

Ethical Orientation and Research Misconduct Among Business Researchers Under the Condition of Autonomy and Competition

The topics of ethical conduct and governance in academic research in the business field have attracted scientific and public attention. The concern is that research misconduct in organizations such as business schools and universities might result in practitioners, policymakers, and researchers grounding their decisions on biased research results. This study addresses ethical research misconduct by investigating whether the ethical orientation of business researchers is related to the likelihood of research misconduct, such as selective reporting of research findings. We distinguish between deontological and consequentialist ethical orientations and the competition between researchers and investigate the moderating role of their perceived autonomy. Based on global data collected from 1031 business scholars, we find that researchers with a strong deontological ethical orientation are less prone to misconduct. This effect is robust against different levels of perceived autonomy and competition. In contrast, researchers having a consequentialist ethical orientation is positively associated with misconduct in business research. High levels of competition in the research environment reinforce this effect. Our results reveal a potentially toxic combination comprising researchers with a strong consequentialist orientation who are embedded in highly competitive research environments. Our research calls for the development of ethical orientations grounded on maxims rather than anticipated consequences among researchers. We conclude that measures for ethical governance in business schools should consider the ethical orientation that underlies researchers' decision-making and the organizational and institutional environment in which business researchers are embedded.

Students’ mindsets on research integrity—a cross-cultural comparison

Research integrity (RI) has been a focus of society in recent years as a means to create and to keep trust in science. Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a key role in promoting a culture of RI and responsible conduct of research (RCR). The understanding and practice of RI can vary across cultures. This article aims to outline initial insights into university students’ RI mindsets based on five RI facets: understanding, importance, value–action gap, enforcement approaches, and training. A qualitative exploratory cross-cultural study was conducted with participants from Germany and Bulgaria via semi-structured guided group interviews. An explicit transcultural agreement regarding the significance of RI was categorically indicated. Intercultural differences between the two European countries were revealed and discussed in reference to understanding RI, the value–action gap, enforcement approaches, and training preferences.

Development and implementation of research integrity guidance documents: Explorative interviews with research integrity experts

Research integrity (RI) guidance documents often lack sufficient details on handling specific RI issues causing the lack of harmonized approaches to RI and opening the way to research misconduct and other detrimental research practices. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are developed and implemented by organizations for ensuring the uniformity and quality of performed actions. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' opinions on SOPs for RI, factors influencing the implementation of RI guidance documents and practices, and ideas for improvements in the RI field. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from different groups. Data were analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis approach, and three themes were developed. The first theme addressed participants' knowledge and perceptions on SOPs for RI and their impact on RI promotion and implementation. The second theme described different factors that have a positive or negative impact on the implementation of RI and RI guidance documents and practices, while the third theme addressed needed changes and ideas for improvements in the RI field. Participants considered SOPs valuable for RI promotion. SOPs should be developed based on and consistent with more general and aspirational guidance and through the dialogue with researchers and other stakeholders, to ensure their relevancy.

Optimizing Research Output: How Can Psychological Research Methods Be Improved?

Recent evidence suggests that research practices in psychology and many other disciplines are far less effective than previously assumed, which has led to what has been called a "crisis of confidence" in psychological research (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012). In response to the perceived crisis, standard research practices have come under intense scrutiny, and various changes have been suggested to improve them. The burgeoning field of metascience seeks to use standard quantitative data-gathering and modeling techniques to understand the reasons for inefficiency, to assess the likely effects of suggested changes, and ultimately to tell psychologists how to do better science. We review the pros and cons of suggested changes, highlighting the many complex research trade-offs that must be addressed to identify better methods. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 73 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society

Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.

Survey on the Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices of Medical Students, PhD Students, and Supervisors at the Zagreb School of Medicine in Croatia

This cross-sectional study evaluates the knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and behavior of final year medical students, PhD students, and supervisors at the School of Medicine of the University of Zagreb in relation to research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the research environment. The overall response rate was 36.4% (68%-100% for the paper survey and 8%-15% for the online surveys). The analysis reveals statistically significant differences in attitude scores between PhD students and supervisors, the latter having attitudes more in concordance with accepted norms. The results overall show a nonnegligible incidence of self-reported misconduct and questionable research practices, as well as some problematic attitudes towards misconduct and questionable research practices. The incidence of problematic authorship practices was particularly high. The research environment was evaluated as being mostly supportive of research integrity.

Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices

This opinion piece aims to inform future research funding programs on responsible research practices (RRP) based on three specific objectives: (1) to give a sketch of the current international discussion on responsible research practices (RRPs); (2) to give an overview of current initiatives and already obtained results regarding RRP; and (3) to give an overview of potential future needs for research on RRP. In this opinion piece, we have used seven iterative methodological steps (including literature review, ranking, and sorting exercises) to create the proposed research agenda. We identified six main themes that we believe need attention in future research: (1) responsible evaluation of research and researchers, (2) the influence of open science and transparency on RRP, (3) research on responsible mentoring, supervision, and role modeling, (4) the effect of education and training on RRP, (5) checking for reproducibility, and (6) responsible and fair peer review. These themes have in common that they address aspects of research that are mostly on the level of the scientific system, more than on the level of the individual researcher. Some current initiatives are already gathering substantial empirical evidence to start filling these gaps. We believe that with sufficient support from all relevant stakeholders, more progress can be made.

Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

This study aims to profile the scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database from 2010 to 2019, from researchers at the top 20 World Class Universities according to the Times Higher Education global ranking of 2020. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and simple linear regression were used to analyze the data. Of the 330 analyzed retractions, Harvard University had the highest number of retractions and the main reason for retraction was data results. We conclude that the universities with a higher ranking tend to have a lower rate of retraction.

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.