Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

Deception by obfuscation: Studnicki et al.'s retracted longitudinal cohort study of emergency room utilization following abortion

OBJECTIVES

In November 2022, the anti-abortion advocacy group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration challenging the initial 2000 approval of mifepristone and its subsequent approvals, which removed unnecessary restrictions on its use, by disputing the medication's safety record. Such challenges relied on a study examining the incidence of emergency room visits following medication abortion with mifepristone and procedural abortion using Medicaid claims data from 1999-2015. In February 2024 that study was retracted by its publisher. In this paper, we analyzed the methods and presentations of the data used in the study.

STUDY DESIGN

We drew upon commonly accepted principles in responsible epidemiologic and scientific research to evaluate the methods and presentations of the data and organized our findings into themes.

RESULTS

We found multiple instances of methodological flaws, mischaracterizations, and obfuscations of data in this study, including use of a misleading research question and framing, analytic flaws, inappropriate use of an unvalidated proxy measure for outcomes of interest, and inappropriate and deceptive visualizations of data. In each instance, the resulting effect obfuscated and misrepresented the safety of medication abortion with mifepristone.

CONCLUSIONS

The misrepresentation and exaggeration of data promoted and exacerbated misinterpretations about the study's findings, resulting in substantial harm before it was retracted. Recognizing that ongoing judicial proceedings threaten access to conventional reproductive health care in the United States, public health policies must be informed by scientific and medical literature that is comprehensive, methodologically sound, and absent any obfuscations or misrepresentations.

IMPLICATIONS

Studnicki et al.'s study of emergency room visits after abortion misrepresented the safety of mifepristone with multiple instances of methodological flaws and obfuscations of data. While the study has now been retracted, it led to irrevocable harm, threatening access to medication abortion, which has an established safety record.

The EQIPD quality system - Assessment and certification procedures

The EQIPD Quality System was designed with the ultimate mission to provide a framework to ensure the quality and integrity of non-regulated preclinical biomedical research. For research quality to be sustained over time, it is crucial to have continuous improvement mechanisms that routinely monitor the research-related processes and enable solutions for identified issues. The present article is focused on these monitoring and assessment procedures that make the EQIPD Quality System a fully functional 'system' (as opposed to a mere collection of guidelines, work instructions and policies). In this context, a critical instrument are the internal and external assessments of the EQIPD Quality System performance described in detail. The assessment procedures emphasize the unique nature of the EQIPD Quality System being user-friendly, flexible and fit-for-purpose. By undergoing the (voluntary) external EQIPD assessment (leading to the EQIPD certification after all EQIPD core requirements have been implemented), a research unit: (i) secures confidence in the quality of data generated, (ii) ensures continuous improvement of research processes, and (iii) obtains an independent seal of quality communicating commitment to best research practices to the research community.

Commentary: Fifty years exploring pharmacology with Sam Enna

The passing of Sam Enna in June of 2023 is major loss to the world of pharmacology. While best known for his extensive research activities in the area of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) pharmacology, Sam devoted much of his professional time to teaching and as an Editor in Chief for the legacy journals - the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (JPET - 1998-2003); Pharmacology & Therapeutics (P & T - 2003-2023) and Biochemical Pharmacology (BCP -2003-2023) - increasing the volume of submissions for all three journals and their Impact Factors while decreasing the time for peer review and publication. Sam was a well-respected consultant in the CNS area for the biopharmaceutical industry and served as Secretary General and President of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology where his efforts were focused on sustaining research integrity, particularly in the areas of data reproducibility and fraud. This Commentary provides a personal overview of Sam's 50-year career in pharmacology and briefly updates topics that were of keen interest to Sam including: developments on the continuing reproducibility crisis where systematic fraud continues to proliferate now reaching industrial scale proportions, aided and abetted by paper mills, AI and the erosion of meritocratic norms; and the fall and rise of CNS drug discovery.

Mismatch in perceptions of the quality of supervision and research data management as an area of concern: Results from a university-wide survey of the research integrity culture at a Belgian university

Researchers of KU Leuven, a large Belgian university, were invited to complete a bespoke questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward research integrity and the local research culture, with specific emphasis on the supervision of junior researchers. A total of 7,353 invitations were sent via e-mail and 1,866 responses were collected (25.3% response rate), of which 1,723 responses are reported upon here. Some of the findings are relevant to the broader research community. Whereas supervisors evaluated their supervision of junior researchers almost unanimously as positive, fewer supervisees evaluated it as such. Data management emerged as an area of concern, both in terms of reviewing raw data and of data storage. More female than male professors emphasized open communication and supported their supervisees' professional development and personal well-being. At the same time, fewer female professors felt safe to speak up than male professors. Finally, researchers who obtained their master's degree outside Europe evaluated their supervision and KU Leuven's research culture more positively than researchers with a master's degree from KU Leuven. The results of the survey were fed back to the university's board and several bodies and served as input to update the university's research policy. Faculties and departments received a detailed report.

Bad apples or systematic problem? Is Italy struggling with maintaining high level of research integrity?

The recent scandal involving Prof. Schillaci has raised concerns about the integrity of the Italian academic landscape, highlighting potential deeper issues within the research ecosystem. Despite the existence of comprehensive guidelines for research integrity set by the National Council of Research (CNR) and some prominent universities, the emphasis on educating research personnel about the importance of research integrity remains lacking. Additionally, prevalent issues such as nepotism and the manipulation of metrics for career advancement pose further challenges to fostering a fair and accountable research environment. While certain legislative measures have been implemented to address these issues, their effectiveness remains limited, allowing unethical practices to persist. To address these challenges, a concerted effort at the national, institutional, and individual levels is necessary. By taking these steps, Italy has the opportunity to strengthen its research ethics landscape and move toward a more transparent and ethical academic environment.

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.

Academic journals cannot simply require authors to declare that they used ChatGPT

This letter to the editor points out weaknesses in the editorial policies of some academic journals regarding the use of ChatGPT-generated content. Editorial policies should provide more specific details on which parts of an academic paper are allowed to use ChatGPT-generated content. If authors use ChatGPT-generated content in the conclusion or results section, it may harm the academic paper's originality and, therefore, should not be accepted.

The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the "unprecedented" circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

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.

Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The results of clinical trials should be completely and rapidly reported during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. This study aimed to examine when, and where, the results of COVID-19 clinical trials were disseminated throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic.

METHODS

Clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment or prevention were identified from the WHO ICTRP database. All interventional trials with a registered completion date ≤ 30 June 2021 were included. Trial results, published as preprints, journal articles, or registry results, were located using automated and manual techniques across PubMed, Google Scholar, Google, EuropePMC, CORD-19, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and clinical trial registries. Our main analysis reports the rate of dissemination overall and per route, and the time from registered completion to results using Kaplan-Meier methods, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 1643 trials with completion dates ranging from 46 to 561 days prior to the start of results searches were included. The cumulative probability of reporting was 12.5% at 3 months from completion, 21.6% at 6 months, and 32.8% at 12 months. Trial results were most commonly disseminated in journals (n = 278 trials, 69.2%); preprints were available for 194 trials (48.3%), 86 (44.3%) of which converted to a full journal article. Trials completed earlier in the pandemic were reported more rapidly than those later in the pandemic, and those involving ivermectin were more rapidly reported than other common interventions. Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses except when considering only trials in a "completed" status on the registry, which substantially increased reporting rates. Poor trial registry data on completion status and dates limits the precision of estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 trials saw marginal increases in reporting rates compared to standard practice; most registered trials failed to meet even the 12-month non-pandemic standard. Preprints were common, complementing journal publication; however, registries were underutilized for rapid reporting. Maintaining registry data enables accurate representation of clinical research; failing to do so undermines these registries' use for public accountability and analysis. Addressing rapid reporting and registry data quality must be emphasized at global, national, and institutional levels.

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System

As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.

Bridges of perspectives: representation of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in editorial boards and peer review

BACKGROUND

Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have examined diversity among editorial board members and reviewers for factors such as gender, geographic location, and race, but limited research has explored the representation of people with disabilities. Here, we sought to understand the landscape of inclusivity of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury specifically in journals publishing papers (2012-2022) on their quality of life.

METHODS

An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors over a one-month period beginning December 2022.

RESULTS

We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses (response rate 48%). Notwithstanding the small sample, over 50% (8/15) of respondents indicated that their journal review practices involve people with lived experience of spinal cord injury, signaling positive even if incomplete inclusivity practices. The most notable reported barriers to achieving this goal related to identifying and recruiting people with lived experience to serve in the review and editorial process.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found positive but incomplete trends toward inclusivity in journal practices involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury. We recommend, therefore, that explicit and genuine efforts are directed toward recruitment through community-based channels. To improve representation even further, we suggest that editors and reviewers be offered the opportunity to self-identify as living with a disability without discrimination or bias.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.

METHODS

Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.

RESULTS

Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.

CONCLUSION

The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

Should infectious disease modelling research be subject to ethics review?

Should research projects involving epidemiological modelling be subject to ethical scrutiny and peer review prior to publication? Mathematical modelling had considerable impacts during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to social distancing and lockdowns. Imperial College conducted research leading to the website publication of a paper, Report 9, on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and COVID-19 mortality demand dated 16th March 2020, arguing for a Government policy of non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, working from home, furlough, school closures, reduced family interaction etc.) to counter COVID 19. Enquiries and Freedom of Information requests to the institution indicate that there was no formal ethical committee review of this specific research, nor was there any peer review prior to their online publication of Report 9. This paper considers the duties placed upon researchers, institutions and research funders under the UK 'Concordat to Support Research Integrity' (CSRI), across various bioethical domains, and whether ethical committee scrutiny should be required for this research.

Research anomalies in criminology: How serious? How extensive over time? And who was responsible?

A variety of ways to detect questionable research practices in small sample social science surveys have been discussed by a variety of authors. However, some of those approaches (e.g., GRIM test, SPRITE test) do not work well for results obtained from larger samples. Here several approaches for detecting anomalies in larger samples are presented and illustrated by an analysis of 78 journal articles in the area of criminology, 59 by Dr. Eric Stewart, published since 1998 with similar methods and/or authors, finding evidence that seven of the 59 articles have been retracted or corrected and of the remaining 52, nine (17.3%) featured at least one moderate anomaly while 38 (73.1%) featured at least one major or two moderate anomalies. Of all 59 articles, 28 (47.5%, p < .001, d = 0.94) had two or more major anomalies compared to none of the 19 control group articles. Furthermore, 22 (42.3%) of the 52 articles featured at least two major anomalies (p < .001, d = 0.89). It was also found that the larger the role of Dr. Stewart in article authorship, the greater the number of anomalies detected (p < .001, d = 1.01) while for his co-authors, there were few significant relationships between their roles and total anomalies. Our results demonstrate that extensive problematic results can remain undetected for decades despite several levels of peer review and other scientific controls; however, use of two types of control groups and the use of statistical methods for measuring and evaluating anomalies can improve detection.

Is requiring Research Integrity Advisors a useful policy for improving research integrity? A census of advisors in Australia

Research Integrity Advisor s are used in Australia to provide impartial guidance to researchers who have questions about any aspect of responsible research practice. Every Australian institution conducting research must provide access to trained advisors. This national policy could be an important part of creating a safe environment for discussing research integrity issues and thus resolving issues. We conducted the first formal study of advisors, using a census of every Australian advisor to discover their workload and attitudes to their role. We estimated there are 739 advisors nationally. We received responses to our questions from 192. Most advisors had a very light workload, with an median of just 0.5 days per month. Thirteen percent of advisors had not received any training, and some advisors only discovered they were an advisor after our approach. Most advisors were positive about their ability to help colleagues deal with integrity issues. The main desired changes were for greater advertising of their role and a desire to promote good practice rather than just supporting potential issues. Advisors might be a useful policy for supporting research integrity, but some advisors need better institutional support in terms of training and raising awareness.

Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions

To foster research integrity (RI), research institutions should develop a continuous RI education approach, addressing various target groups. To support institutions to achieve this, we developed RI education guidelines together with RI experts and research administrators, exploring similarities and differences in recommendations across target groups, as well as recommendations about RI education using approaches other than formal RI training. We used an iterative co-creative process. We conducted four half-day online co-creation workshops with 16 participants in total, which were informed by the RI education evidence-base. In the first two workshops, participants generated ideas for guidelines' content, focusing on different target groups and various approaches to RI education. Based on this content we developed first drafts of the guidelines. Participants in the third and fourth workshop refined those drafts. We next organized a working group which further prioritized, reorganized, and optimized the content of the guidelines. We developed four guidelines on RI education focusing on (a) bachelor, master and PhD students; (b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; (c) other RI stakeholders; as well as (d) continuous RI education. Across guidelines, we recommend mandatory RI training; follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about RI; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in RI education; and evaluation of RI educational events. Our work provides experience-based co-created guidance to research institutions on what to consider when developing a successful RI education strategy. Each guideline is offered as a distinct, publicly available tool in our toolbox ( www.sops4ri.eu/toolbox ) which institutions can access, adapt and implement to meet their institution-specific RI education needs.Trial registration https://osf.io/zej5b .

Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.

Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot

OBJECTIVES

To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings.

OUTCOME

The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data.

CONCLUSIONS

The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.

Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices.

METHODS

Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices.

RESULTS

Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known.

CONCLUSIONS

Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.

Biomedical supervisors' role modeling of open science practices

Supervision is one important way to socialize Ph.D. candidates into open and responsible research. We hypothesized that one should be more likely to identify open science practices (here publishing open access and sharing data) in empirical publications that were part of a Ph.D. thesis when the Ph.D. candidates' supervisors engaged in these practices compared to those whose supervisors did not or less often did. Departing from thesis repositories at four Dutch University Medical centers, we included 211 pairs of supervisors and Ph.D. candidates, resulting in a sample of 2062 publications. We determined open access status using UnpaywallR and Open Data using Oddpub, where we also manually screened publications with potential open data statements. Eighty-three percent of our sample was published openly, and 9% had open data statements. Having a supervisor who published open access more often than the national average was associated with an odds of 1.99 to publish open access. However, this effect became nonsignificant when correcting for institutions. Having a supervisor who shared data was associated with 2.22 (CI:1.19-4.12) times the odds to share data compared to having a supervisor that did not. This odds ratio increased to 4.6 (CI:1.86-11.35) after removing false positives. The prevalence of open data in our sample was comparable to international studies; open access rates were higher. Whilst Ph.D. candidates spearhead initiatives to promote open science, this study adds value by investigating the role of supervisors in promoting open science.

The Mentor's Role in Fostering Research Integrity Standards Among New Generations of Researchers: A Review of Empirical Studies

Promoting research integrity practices among doctoral candidates and early career researchers is important for creating a stable and healthy research environment. In addition to teaching specific technical skills and knowledge, research supervisors and mentors inevitably convey research practices, both directly and indirectly. We conducted a scoping review to summarise the role of mentors in fostering research integrity practices, mentors' responsibilities and the role that institutions have in supporting good mentorship. We searched five different databases and included studies that used an empirical methodology. After searching, a total of 1199 articles were retrieved, of which 24 were eligible for analysis. After snowballing, a total of 35 empirical articles were selected. The review discusses various themes such as the importance of good mentorship, poor mentorship practices, virtues and qualities of mentors, responsibilities and activities of mentors, group mentoring and responsibilities of the institution in supporting good mentorship. This review demonstrates the importance of mentors instilling responsible research practices and attitudes, and promoting research integrity among their mentees. Mentors are responsible for providing explicit guidance and for acting as good role models. The review highlights how poor mentorship can have a bad impact on the research climate. In addition, the review highlights the important influence that institutions can have in supporting mentorship.

A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses

Trainers often use information from previous learning sessions to design or redesign a course. Although universities conducted numerous research integrity training in the past decades, information on what works and what does not work in research integrity training are still scattered. The latest meta-reviews offer trainers some information about effective teaching and learning activities. Yet they lack information to determine which activities are plausible for specific target groups and learning outcomes and thus do not support course design decisions in the best possible manner. This article wants to change this status quo and outlines an easy-to-use taxonomy for research integrity training based on Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation to foster mutual exchange and improve research integrity course design. By describing the taxonomy for research integrity training (TRIT) in detail and outlining three European projects, their intended training effects before the project started, their learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and their assessment instruments, this article introduces a unified approach. This article gives practitioners references to identify didactical interrelations and impacts and (knowledge) gaps in how to (re-)design an RI course. The suggested taxonomy is easy to use and enables an increase in tailored and evidence-based (re-)designs of research integrity training.

Ethically Driven and Methodologically Tailored: Setting the Agenda for Systematic Reviews in Domestic Violence and Abuse

Purpose

Systematic reviews have an important, and growing, role to play in the global evidence eco-system of domestic violence and abuse. Alongside substantive contributions to knowledge, such reviews stimulate debates about ethical reviewing practices and the importance of tailoring methods to the nuances of the field. This paper aims to pinpoint a set of ethical and methodological priorities to guide and enhance review practices specifically in the field of domestic abuse.

Method

The five Pillars of the Research Integrity Framework (ethical guidelines for domestic abuse research) are used to interrogate the systematic review process. To do so, the Framework is retrospectively applied to a recently completed systematic review in domestic abuse. The review included a rapid systematic map and in-depth analysis of interventions aimed at creating or enhancing informal support and social networks for victim-survivors of abuse.

Results

Ethical and methodological priorities for systematic reviews in domestic abuse include (1) Safety and wellbeing: maintaining the wellbeing of researchers and stakeholders, and appraising the ethics of included studies, (2) Transparency/ accountability: transparent reporting of research funding, aims and methods together with explicit consideration of authorship of outputs, (3) Equality, human rights and social justice: developing diverse review teams/ Advisory groups, and review methods that aim to search for, and report, diverse perspectives. Considering researcher positionality/ reflexivity in the review, (4) Engagement: collaboration with non-academic stakeholders and individuals with lived experience throughout the review process, (5) Research Ethics: independent ethical scrutiny of systematic review proposals with input from researchers with expertise in systematic reviews and domestic abuse.

Conclusion

Additional research is required to comprehensively examine the ethics of each stage of the review process. In the meantime, attention should be given to the underpinning ethical framework for our systematic review practices and the wider research infrastructure that governs reviews.

Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals

Growing concerns about the credibility of scientific findings have sparked a debate on new transparency and openness standards in research. Management and organization studies scholars generally support the new standards, while emphasizing the unique challenges associated with their implementation in this paradigmatically diverse discipline. In this study, I analyze the costs to authors and journals associated with the implementation of new transparency and openness standards, and provide a progress report on the implementation level thus far. Drawing on an analysis of the submission guidelines of 60 empirical management journals, I find that the call for greater transparency was received, but resulted in implementations that were limited in scope and depth. Even standards that could have been easily adopted were left unimplemented, producing a paradoxical situation in which research designs that need transparency standards the most are not exposed to any, likely because the standards are irrelevant to other research designs.

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.

Incomplete reporting of complex interventions: a call to action for journal editors to review their submission guidelines

Reporting of intervention research has been inadequate for many years. The development and promotion of freely available checklists aims to address this problem by providing researchers with a list of items that require reporting to enable study interpretation and replication. In this commentary, we present evidence from a recent systematic review of 51 randomised controlled trials published 2015-2020 that inadequate intervention reporting remains a widespread issue and that checklists are not being used to describe all intervention components. In 2022, we assessed the submission guidelines of 33 journals that published articles included in our review and found that just one at the time encouraged the use of reporting checklists for all intervention components. To drive progress, we contacted the editors of the other 32 journals and requested that they update their submission guidelines in response. We conclude by highlighting the waste associated with current practices and encourage journals from all fields to urgently review their submission guidelines. Only through collective action can we build an evidence base that is fit for purpose.

Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other's findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse. By adopting open science practices, research becomes transparent and accountable. Only then it is possible to verify whether trust in research findings is justified. The magnitude of the issue is substantial with a prevalence of four percent for both fabrication and falsification, and more than 50% for questionable research practices. This implies that researchers regularly engage in behaviors that harm the validity and trustworthiness of their work. What is good for the quality and reliability of research is not always good for a scholarly career. Navigating this dilemma depends on how virtuous the researcher at issue is, but also on the local research climate and the perverse incentives in the way the research system functions. Research institutes, funding agencies and scholarly journals can do a lot to foster research integrity, first and foremost by improving the quality of peer review and reforming researcher assessment.

The Contribution of Moral Case Deliberation to Teaching RCR to PhD Students

Teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR) to PhD students is crucial for fostering responsible research practice. In this paper, we show how the use of Moral Case Deliberation-a case reflection method used in the Amsterdam UMC RCR PhD course-is particularity valuable to address three goals of RCR education: (1) making students aware of, and internalize, RCR principles and values, (2) supporting reflection on good conduct in personal daily practice, and (3) developing students' dialogical attitude and skills so that they can deliberate on RCR issues when they arise. What makes this method relevant for RCR education is the focus on values and personal motivations, the structured reflection on real experiences and dilemmas and the cultivation of participants' dialogical skills. During these structured conversations, students reflect on the personal motives that drive them to adhere to the principles of good science, thereby building connections between those principles and their personal values and motives. Moreover, by exploring personal questions and dilemmas related to RCR, they learn how to address these with colleagues and supervisors. The reflection on personal experiences with RCR issues and questions combined with the study of relevant normative frameworks, support students to act responsibly and to pursue RCR in their day-to-day research practice in spite of difficulties and external constraints.

Research integrity and the regulatory-industrial complex

Integrity in research is essential so that research can do what it is supposed to do: help us discover - or get closer to - the truth about the world and how it works. Research integrity means conducting oneself in ways that are worthy of the trust that the public invests in science. Efforts over the past five decades to ensure that researchers conduct themselves with integrity have focused on regulating researcher behavior. The suite of regulatory requirements - over 100 of them - is typically managed by an office of research compliance at universities and research institutions. The regulations, and the accompanying rules and policies, have created a regulatory-industrial complex that, while necessary, should give us pause. With the proliferation of regulations, professional organizations and certifications blossom, providing much-needed training and vouching for expertise in particular regulations. This credibility is crucial, but it also gives a false impression that we can regulate our way to ethical science. Creating a regulatory-industrial complex will not achieve our goal of an ethical research enterprise. We need to build ethical institutional cultures, engage the commitment of the entire research enterprise, and do the hard work of holding accountable the entire research ecosystem.

Letter to editor: Academic journals should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in papers

This letter to the editor argues that if academic journals are willing to accept papers that include NLP-generated content under certain conditions, editorial policies should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in the paper. Excessive use of NLP-generated content should be considered as academic misconduct.

The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are proliferating as they are an important building block to inform evidence-based guidelines and decision-making. Enforcement of best practice in clinical trials is firmly on the research agenda of good clinical practice, but there is less clarity as to how evidence syntheses that combine these studies can be influenced by bad practice. Our aim was to conduct a living systematic review of articles that highlight flaws in published systematic reviews to formally document and understand these problems.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a comprehensive assessment of all literature examining problems, which relate to published systematic reviews.

RESULTS

The first iteration of our living systematic review (https://systematicreviewlution.com/) has found 485 articles documenting 67 discrete problems relating to the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews which can potentially jeopardize their reliability or validity.

CONCLUSION

Many hundreds of articles highlight that there are many flaws in the conduct, methods, and reporting of published systematic reviews, despite the existence and frequent application of guidelines. Considering the pivotal role that systematic reviews have in medical decision-making due to having apparently transparent, objective, and replicable processes, a failure to appreciate and regulate problems with these highly cited research designs is a threat to credible science.

What criteria are used in the investigation of alleged cases of research misconduct?

Research misconduct is a global concern. Considerable research has been devoted to guidance documents, but little attention has been paid to the empirical investigation of how (alleged) cases of research misconduct are addressed in real-life and which criteria are used to qualify a case as misconduct. Therefore, we performed a content analysis of 169 closed misconduct reports between 2007 and 2017 from Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, representing three different types of governance of research misconduct. This study showed that when considering a case of (alleged) misconduct investigating committees assess 1) the objective evidence of research misconduct, 2) the subjective intent of the person subject to investigations, and 3) case specific circumstances. We found that research misconduct was established in 15% (9/61) of cases in Denmark; 16% (13/82) in the Netherlands and 38% (10/26) in Belgium. 57% (35/61) of cases in Denmark, 49% (40/82) in the Netherlands, and 12% (3/26) in Belgium were deemed outside of the scope of the investigating committee. Our analysis improves the understanding of how investigations of (alleged) misconduct are handled by the investigating committees in Europe.

Homeopathy can offer empirical insights on treatment effects in a null field

OBJECTIVES

A "null field" is a scientific field where there is nothing to discover and where observed associations are thus expected to simply reflect the magnitude of bias. We aimed to characterize a null field using a known example, homeopathy (a pseudoscientific medical approach based on using highly diluted substances), as a prototype.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified 50 randomized placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy interventions from highly cited meta-analyses. The primary outcome variable was the observed effect size in the studies. Variables related to study quality or impact were also extracted.

RESULTS

The mean effect size for homeopathy was 0.36 standard deviations (Hedges' g; 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 0.51) better than placebo, which corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.94 (95% CI: 1.69, 2.23) in favor of homeopathy. 80% of studies had positive effect sizes (favoring homeopathy). Effect size was significantly correlated with citation counts from journals in the directory of open-access journals and CiteWatch. We identified common statistical errors in 25 studies.

CONCLUSION

A null field like homeopathy can exhibit large effect sizes, high rates of favorable results, and high citation impact in the published scientific literature. Null fields may represent a useful negative control for the scientific process.

Distributions of baseline categorical variables were different from the expected distributions in randomized trials with integrity concerns

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Comparing observed and expected distributions of baseline continuous variables in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be used to assess publication integrity. We explored whether baseline categorical variables could also be used.

METHODS

The observed and expected (binomial) distribution of all baseline categorical variables were compared in four sets of RCTs: two controls, and two with publication integrity concerns. We also compared baseline calculated and reported P-values.

RESULTS

The observed and expected distributions of baseline categorical variables were similar in the control datasets, both for frequency counts (and percentages) and for between-group differences in frequency counts. However, in both sets of RCTs with publication integrity concerns, about twice as many variables as expected had between-group differences in frequency counts of one or 2, and far fewer variables than expected had between-group differences of >4 (P < 0.001 for both datasets). Furthermore, about one in six reported P-values for baseline categorial variables differed by > 0.1 from the calculated P-value in trials with publication integrity concerns.

CONCLUSION

Comparing the observed and expected distributions and reported and calculated P-values of baseline categorical variables may help in the assessment of publication integrity of a body of RCTs.

Good practice in medicine and biology: scientific integrity needs global bioethics

We consider scientific integrity to constitute a new theory of morality of science, in a very specific deontological sense. Indeed, at least in practice, scientific integrity extends beyond scientific concerns, seeking to develop specific moral duties and/or procedures based on general moral values and/or standards, leading to common moral frameworks for usual scientific practices. This is, of course, necessary. Contemporary history has shown us only too well that usual scientific practices need common moral frameworks, especially in medicine and biology. However, like scientific practices, and medical and biological practices in particular, the persistence of certain moral values and/or standards and the priority attributed to them, can change significantly, due to changes in society, people, the times and/or environments, and they may be under strong tension. We therefore believe that a new theory of ethics of science, in a very specific teleological sense, may be required in this case, particularly in medicine and biology, in addition to scientific integrity. This ethical theory, through research, professionals and structures in ethics of science also called medical ethics, research ethics or bioethics in the fields of medicine and biology, should seek to identify and find specific ethical solutions to these tensions, applicable at a particular place and time, based on common ethical purposes and/or consequences. As a result, these specific ethical solutions may, or may not, lead to an evolution of common moral frameworks, which may, or may not, be developed on the basis of scientific integrity. In the fields of medicine and biology, this ethical theory is closely related to another theory, global bioethics, but with a number of new conceptual and methodological developments.

Restoring Study PRGF: a randomized clinical trial on plasma rich in growth factors for knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

A randomized clinical trial assessing plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) versus hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis was published in 2012 (sponsor trial ID BTI-01-EC/07/ART). Evidence of misreporting was discovered following access to unpublished materials. In accordance with the principles of the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, we sought to re-analyse Study PRGF based on the unpublished trial materials.

METHODS

Reanalysis was made possible primarily based on two unpublished study documents (original trial protocol and final report) obtained from the authors of the original publication. A call to action, calling on the authors to correct the original publication, was publicly issued. The involved ethics committee was repeatedly approached and extensive discussion with the authors ensued. After no agreement to correct the paper was reached, we embarked on this restoration. Reanalysis was focused on providing updated analyses for efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

The efficacy of PRGF was not statistically different from hyaluronic acid for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcomes. For the primary endpoint, the percent of patients on PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid with a decrease >40% in WOMAC pain subscale score was 5.4% higher; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to 21.3%; p = 0.505. This differs from the original publication that reported a non-prespecified primary endpoint (decrease >50% in WOMAC pain subscale score) which was 14.1% higher; 95% CI 0.5 to 27.6%; p=0.044. Furthermore, in contrast to the article statement that all the adverse events disappeared in 48 h, at least two patients in the hyaluronic arm and five patients in the PRGF arm reported persistent adverse events. Inadequate disclosure of conflicts of interest in the original publication was also noted.

CONCLUSIONS

This reanalysis of Study PRGF found no clinically or statistically significant benefit from PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid. The restoration of Study PRGF shows the urgency of important changes to trial reporting and oversight practices. In the future, timely access to all clinical trial documents is needed to minimize the risk of reporting bias. Similarly, ethics committees should be ready to intervene whenever a case of potential misconduct arises.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This is a RIAT project, whose original trial was approved and registered on 19 December 2007 by the Ethics Committee of the Basque Country, Spain, as BTI-01-EC/07/ART.

Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe

Structures for and practices of research integrity (RI) and research ethics (RE) differ among countries. This study analyzed the processes and structures for RI and RE in Europe, following the framework developed at the World Conferences on Research Integrity. We present RI and RE Country Report Cards for 16 European countries, which included the information on RI and RE structures, processes and outcomes. While some of the countries are front-runners when it comes to RI and RE, with well-established and continually developing policies and structures, others are just starting their journey in RI and RE. Although RI and RE contextual divergences must be taken into account, a level of harmonization among the countries is necessary so that researchers working in the European area can similarly handle RI and RE issues and have similar expectations regardless of the organization in which they work. RI and RE Country Report Cards can be a tool to monitor, compare, and strengthen RE and integrity across countries through empowerment and inspiration by examples of good practices and developed systems.

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.

An analytical framework-based pedagogical method for scholarly community coaching: A proof of concept

Working in academia is challenging, even more so for those with limited resources and opportunities. Researchers around the world do not have equal working conditions. The paper presents the structure, operation method, and conceptual framework of the SM3D Portal's community coaching method, which is built to help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and researchers in low-resource settings overcome the obstacle of inequality and start their career progress. The community coaching method is envisioned by three science philosophies (cost-effectiveness, transparency spirit, and proactive attitude) and established and operated based on the Serendipity-Mindsponge-3D knowledge (SM3D) management framework (i.e., mindsponge thinking and Bayesian Mindsponge Framework analytics serve as the coaching program's foundational theory and analytical tools). The coaching method also embraces Open Science's values for lowering the cost of doing science and encouraging the trainees to be transparent, which is expected to facilitate the self-correcting mechanism of science through open data, open review, and open dialogue. Throughout the training process, members are central beneficiaries by gaining research knowledge and skills, acquiring publication as the training's product, and shifting their mindsets from "I can't do it" to "I can do it," and at the same time transforming a mentee to be ready for a future mentor's role. The coaching method is thus one of the members, for the member, by the members.•The paper provides the structure, operation method, and conceptual framework of the SM3D Portal's community coaching method, which is built to help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and researchers in low-resource settings overcome the obstacle of inequality and start their career progress.•The paper presents three major science philosophies envisioning the establishment and operation of scholarly community coaching.•The paper employs the mindsponge theory and BMF analytics to construct a conceptual framework explaining how an environment is created to help shift members' mindsets from "I can't do it" to "I can do it."

Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study

Scientific malpractice is not just due to researchers having bad intentions, but also due to a lack of education concerning research integrity practices. Besides the importance of institutionalised trainings on research integrity, research supervisors play an important role in translating what doctoral students learn during research integrity formal sessions. Supervision practices and role modelling influence directly and indirectly supervisees' attitudes and behaviour toward responsible research. Research supervisors can not be left alone in this effort. Research institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in being more aware of their RI function, and in supporting responsible supervision practices to have a positive cascading effect on supervisees' research practices. We interviewed 22 European research supervisors to investigate how they perceive their role as research integrity trainers and their real-life supervision practices. Moreover, we investigated their points of view concerning the role of research institutions in supporting supervision practices. Although there are different commonalities in supervisors' perception of their research integrity-related role, differences are emphasised depending on the supervisors' characteristics such as academic domain, seniority, working country and gender. In addition, supervisors' way of mentoring depend also on supervisees' learning curve. Overall, all supervisors agreed on institutions playing an important role in support their supervision effort and practices. This study aims to be a starting point for better understanding research integrity supervision practices and the role of institutions in supporting them. Moreover, it puts the basis to further investigate differences in supervision practices depending on supervisors' characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y.

A descriptive study found low prevalence of presumed predatory publications in a subset of Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence of presumed predatory publications in Cochrane reviews, which are considered the gold standard.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We selected two Cochrane networks with broad scope: the Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network and the Public Health and Health Systems Network. From reviews produced by all review groups in those networks in 2018 and 2019, we extracted included study citations published after 2000. For each citation, we assessed the journal and publisher using an algorithmic process based on characteristics known to be common among predatory publishers. Knowing that predatory status can be fluid and subjective, we scored citations on a spectrum from "reputable" to "presumed predatory" based on publication characteristics available at the time of assessment.

RESULTS

We assessed 6,750 citations from 300 reviews. Of these citations, 5,734 were published by entities widely accepted as reputable, leaving 1,591 for further assessment. We flagged 55 citations as concerning.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane reviews across diverse topic areas included studies from flagged publishers, although this number is small. Because of this, there is potential for studies from predatory journals to influence the conclusions of systematic reviews. Researchers should stay aware of this potential threat to the quality of reviews.

Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia

Researchers sometimes engage in various forms of dishonesty and unethical behavior, which has led to regulatory efforts to ensure that they work according to acceptable standards. Such regulation is a difficult task, as research is a diverse and dynamic endeavor. Researchers can disagree about what counts as good and acceptable standards, and these standards are constantly developing. This paper presents and discusses recent changes in research integrity and ethics regulation in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Recognizing that research norms are developed through practice and are therefore unsuited for comprehensive national regulation, the Scandinavian countries focus on empowering the research community to regulate itself instead, except for the most severe cases of misconduct. This empowerment takes the form of giving research institutions tools and investigatory powers while also holding them responsible for ensuring that both the institution and individual researchers are up to date on relevant norms. In this way, the Scandinavian governments seek to avoid some of the challenges found in more legalistic approaches, which risk lagging behind the continuous development of research norms and can be insensitive to the fact that different disciplines have different norms. While the new approach in Scandinavian has several potential benefits, it also involves potential trade-offs and limitations. The new laws can create confusion about what researchers are allowed to do. Another issue is that it only addresses the fundamental drivers of misconduct to a limited extent.

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 or any comprehensive study on 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 help and 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.

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.

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.

Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality

BACKGROUND

Research and academic institutions use various delivery channels to deliver Research Integrity (RI) education in their communities. Yet there is no consensus on the best delivery method and the effectiveness of these channels in inculcating a positive RI culture varies across institutions. Hence, this study aimed to understand the preferences of the research community in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted on NTU research community to understand their experience with, and preference for each RI education mode offered in NTU. The RI education modes surveyed in the general ranking question are Data Management Plan (DMP) workshops, Epigeum e-Learning, Compass e-newsletter (email), and NTU policy on Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research. There were 242 responses, comprising 50% research students, 32.2% research staff and 17.8% faculty members. Non-parametric statistical techniques were used to analyse preferences across different RI education modes and within sub-groups (i.e., fields, age, native language, roles in research community).

RESULTS

More than 92% of respondents subscribed to the importance of RI education, but with different preferences for education modes. With respect to RI education in NTU, Compass e-newsletters were ranked the lowest (p < 0.05). Most felt that they were too wordy and unengaging, making it difficult to absorb information. Similarly, Epigeum e-Learning (p < 0.05) and 'policy' (p < 0.05) were found to be too lengthy in presentation. The compulsory NTU RI education modes (Epigeum e-learning and 'policy') enjoyed higher participation rates of 70-80% compared with 32-37% for the self-regulated modes (DMP workshop and e-newsletter). This suggests that regulatory mechanisms are still necessary to promote participation in RI education, and thus, core RI education content should be made compulsory in research/academic institutions. Although Epigeum is a compulsory course, some may not have participated in the programme due to technical issues or they might have forgotten to participate in the programme within the permissible timeframe. For all four RI education modes in NTU, the lack of awareness was among the top cited reasons for not participating.

CONCLUSIONS

Most NTU researchers perceived RI education positively although they may have reservations for some approaches. Conversely, e-Learning is favored over all the other modes except for the mode of Policy. Findings from this study are useful for improving the design of RI education strategies to be more appealing to the research community by enhancing user experience in terms of user-friendliness, relevance to specialisation, providing concise information and better presentation of materials For institutions with similar modes of RI education as NTU, these results may be relevant in improving participation rates and presentation of RI education modes, such as the use of infographics and more concise information.

David Moher

BACKGROUND

The torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues.

MAIN TEXT

This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices.

CONCLUSION

Dr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted

In the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in the revised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.