Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco.

A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity with a focus on the primary forms of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also details the main factors for their occurrence, and the possible ways for mitigating their use among scholars.Methods: The method employed a detailed examination of the main ethical dilemmas, as delineated in literature, as well as the factors leading to these ethical breaches and the strategies to mitigate them. Further, the teaching experiences of the primary author are reflected in the development of the model.Results: The results of this article are represented in a model illustrating the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. Further, a significant aspect of our article is the identification of novel forms of research misconduct concerning the use of irrelevant or forced citations or references.Conclusion: In conclusion, the article highlights the substantial positive effects that adherence to research ethics and integrity have on the academic well-being of scholars.

Retraction of health science articles by researchers in Latin America and the Caribbean: A scoping review

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to assess the profile of retracted health sciences articles authored by individuals affiliated with academic institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We systematically searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Medline/Ovid, Scielo, and LILACS). We included articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2022 that had at least one author with an institutional affiliation in LAC. Data were collected on the year of publication, study design, authors' countries of origin, number of authors, subject matter of the manuscript, scientific journals of publication, retraction characteristics, and reasons for retraction. We included 147 articles, the majority being observational studies (41.5%). The LAC countries with the highest number of retractions were Brazil (n = 69), Colombia (n = 16), and Mexico (n = 15). The areas of study with the highest number of retractions were infectology (n = 21) and basic sciences (n = 15). A retraction label was applied to 89.1% of the articles, 70.7% were retracted by journal editors, and 89.1% followed international retraction guidelines. The primary reasons for retraction included errors in procedures or data collection (n = 39), inconsistency in results or conclusions (n = 37), plagiarism (n = 21), and suspected scientific fraud (n = 19). In conclusion, most retractions of scientific publications in health sciences in LAC adhered to international guidelines and were linked to methodological issues in execution and scientific misconduct. Efforts should be directed toward ensuring the integrity of scientific research in the field of health.

ChatGPT in medical research: challenging time ahead

Since its launch, ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence-powered language model tool, has generated significant attention in research writing. The use of ChatGPT in medical research can be a double-edged sword. ChatGPT can expedite the research writing process by assisting with hypothesis formulation, literature review, data analysis and manuscript writing. On the other hand, using ChatGPT raises concerns regarding the originality and authenticity of content, the precision and potential bias of the tool's output, and the potential legal issues associated with privacy, confidentiality and plagiarism. The article also calls for adherence to stringent citation guidelines and the development of regulations promoting the responsible application of AI. Despite the revolutionary capabilities of ChatGPT, the article highlights its inability to replicate human thought and the difficulties in maintaining the integrity and reliability of ChatGPT-enabled research, particularly in complex fields such as medicine and law. AI tools can be used as supplementary aids rather than primary sources of analysis in medical research writing.

Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications

Background and purpose

Retraction is a significant consequence of scientific research, resulting from various factors ranging from unintentional errors to intentional misconduct. Previous reviews on retracted publications in obstetrics and gynecology have identified "article duplication," "plagiarism," and "fabricated results" as the main reasons for retraction. However, the extent of retracted articles in the literature on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the number and characteristics of retracted articles in the field of MAR.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this study. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed database from 1993 to February 2023, limited to English articles and including all 283 terms from the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care. To identify retracted studies, a specific query combining the 283 terms from the glossary with a retraction-related keyword was used. Only studies focused on MAR and involving human subjects were included.

Results

The electronic search yielded a total of 523,067 records in the field of infertility and fertility care. Among these, a total of 2,458 records were identified as retracted. The citation retraction rate was found to be 0.47% (2,458/523,067; 95%CI 0.45-0.49), and the citation retraction rate for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 0.20% (93/45,616; 95%CI 0.16-0.25). A total of 39 retracted articles specifically related to MAR were identified. Among these, 41.0% were RCTs (n = 16), 15.4% were reviews (n = 6), and 10.3% were retrospective studies (n = 4) or prospective studies (n = 4). Most of the retractions occurred shortly after publication, with "plagiarism" being the most common reason for retraction, followed by "duplicate publication."

Discussion

The issue of retraction exists within the field of infertility and fertility care, including MAR. Our findings indicate that scientific misconduct, particularly plagiarism and duplicate publication, are the primary causes of retraction in MAR. Despite finding that the proportion of retracted citations is low, promoting scientific integrity should be a priority. The consequences of article retractions have significant implications for patient care and the scientific community. Hence, it is crucial to prioritize thorough screening of manuscripts before publication to maintain research integrity.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185769, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020185769.

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.

Whistleblowing legislation and reporting on research misconduct: A case for mutual learning

Regulations on reporting research misconduct have undergone a remarkable process of development since the 1980s. At the same time, many states have also developed legislation governing the receiving of alerts and for protecting whistleblowers against reprisal. Although these two bodies of legislation share the aim of organizing the practice of reporting, they have been developed in isolation from each other, and without sufficient thought as to how they should be linked. Based on an analysis of European Union law and its transposition in France, this article identifies the convergences and divergences between whistleblowing legislation and the reporting of research misconduct. It then looks at the contributions that each body of law can make to the other, both in terms of the procedures applicable and the protection afforded to whistleblowers. The lessons learned from the comparison of whistleblowing law and the procedures for reporting scientific misconduct allow for the identification of avenues for improvement.

Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Aims and Objectives

This study aimed to assess the nature and prevalence of misconduct in self and nonself-reported biomedical research.

Materials and Methods

A detailed review of previously conducted studies was conducted through PubMed Central, PubMed, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms: "scientific misconduct," "Publications," "plagiarism," and "authorship," and keywords: scientific misconduct, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and duplicate publication. MeSH terms and keywords were searched in combinations using Boolean operators "AND" and "OR." Of 7771 articles that appeared in the search, 107 were selected for inspection. The articles were screened for their quality and inclusion criteria. Finally, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Data analysis was conducted using an Open-Source, Open Meta Analyst, statistical software using the package "metaphor."

Results

Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification were prevalent in most articles reviewed. The prevalence of research misconduct for plagiarism was 4.2% for self-reported and 27.9% for nonself-reported studies. Data fabrication was 4.5% in self-reported and 21.7% in nonself-reported studies. Data falsification was 9.7% in self-reported and 33.4% in nonself-reported studies, with significant heterogeneity.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis gives a pooled estimate of the misconduct in research done in biomedical fields such as medicine, dental, pharmacy, and others across the world. We found that there is an alarming rate of misconduct in recent nonself-reported studies, and they were higher than that in the self-reported studies.

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.

Research misconduct and questionable research practices form a continuum

Research data mismanagement (RDMM) is a serious threat to accountability, reproducibility, and re-use of data. In a recent article in this journal, it was argued that RDMM can take two forms: intentional research misconduct or unintentional questionable research practice (QRP). I disagree because the scale for severity of consequences of research misbehavior is not bimodal. Furthermore, intentionality is difficult to prove beyond doubt and is only one of many criteria that should be taken into account when deciding on the severity of a breach of research integrity and whether a sanction is justified. Making a distinction between RDMM that is research misconduct and RDMM which not puts too much emphasis on intentionality and sanctioning. The focus should rather be on improving data management practices by preventive actions, in which research institutions should take a leading role.

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.

Research data mismanagement - from questionable research practice to research misconduct

Good record keeping practice and research data management underlie responsible research conduct and promote reproducibility of research findings in the sciences. In many cases of research misconduct, inadequate research data management frequently appear as an accompanying finding. Findings of disorganized or otherwise poor data archival or loss of research data are, on their own, not usually considered as indicative of research misconduct. Focusing on the availability of raw/primary data and the replicability of research based on these, we posit that most, if not all, instances of research data mismanagement (RDMM) could be considered a questionable research practice (QRP). Furthermore, instances of RDMM at their worst could indeed be viewed as acts of research misconduct. Here, we analyze with postulated scenarios the contexts and circumstances under which RDMM could be viewed as a significant misrepresentation of research (ie. falsification), or data fabrication. We further explore how RDMM might potentially be adjudicated as research misconduct based on intent and consequences. Defining how RDMM could constitute QRP or research misconduct would aid the formulation of relevant institutional research integrity policies to mitigate undesirable events stemming from RDMM.

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

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

Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the publishing of a quantity of scientific research. In less than a year, a record of 200,000 scientific articles have been published on COVID-19. Publishing such a massive quantity of scientific research has instigated publishers to accelerate the review process. An upsurge in the publication rate has resulted in an increase in the retraction rate. This paper focuses on the COVID-19 studies originating across the world from 1 January 2020 to 10 October 2021. The data for this study were mined from http://retractiondatabase.org/. A total of 157 withdrawn articles on COVID-19 were retracted, and it was found that the United States of America contributed 31 (19.75%) retracted articles. Also, 16 (51.61%) of the retracted papers from the United States of America emerge in journals having an Impact Factor (IF). The study presents that 31 (19.75%) retracted articles were worked together by two authors, 26 (16.56%) with one author, and 22 (14.01%) by five authors. Furthermore, Elsevier publishers have the highest retraction rate with 80 (50.96%). Half (50%) of the articles were retracted with "no information" as a reason for retraction. Other reasons for retraction include concern/issues about data, duplication, journal error, lack of approval from a third party, plagiarism, etc.

Perceptions of plagiarism among PhDs across the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts: Results from a national survey in Brazil

Plagiarism allegations are not rare in the history of science, and credit for prior work was and continues to be a source of disputes, involving notions of priority of discovery and of plagiarism. However, consensus over what constitutes plagiarism among scientists from different fields cannot be taken for granted. We conducted a national survey exploring perceptions of plagiarism among PhD holders registered in the database of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). This survey was sent to 143,405 PhD holders across the fields, including biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and engineers as well as linguists, philosophers, and anthropologists, with a 20% response rate. The results suggest that core principles about plagiarism are shared among this multidisciplinary community, thus corroborating Robert K. Merton's observations that concerns over plagiarism and priority disputes are not field specific. This study offers insight into the way plagiarism is perceived in the research community and sheds light on the problem in the context of international collaborative research networks. The data focus on a particular research system in Latin America, but, given the cultural similarities that bind most Latin-American nations, these results may be relevant to other PhD populations in the region and should provide an opportunity for comparison with studies from other emerging, non-Anglophone regions.

Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals - a covert form of research misconduct?

A predatory journal could be provisionally defined as one masquerading as a genuine academic publication but offer little, if any, rigorous peer review. Predatory journals or publishers place a focus on maximising financial profit, as opposed to regulated dissemination of scientific advancements. As a result, authors can often get their work published in such journals with little scrutiny on quality. Although generally warned against and discouraged, universally practiced sanctions against researchers’ submission to and publication in predatory journals are not common. Predatory publishing thus remains prevalent, particularly in places where academic success is measured by the quantity rather than quality of publication output, which feeds the journal’s business model that thrives upon significant market demand. However, such an undesirable enterprise has the potential to flood the scientific literature with unsound research that could be misleadingly perceived as authoritative. This may result in or add to the confusion of policy makers and the layperson, consequentially bringing disrepute to science and all parties involved. Here, we argue that wilfully submitting one’s manuscript to a predatory journal may constitute an active act of avoidance of rigorous peer review of one’s work. If such is the intention, it would be a questionable research practice and could be considered an, albeit covert, form of scientific misconduct. If labelled as such, and with institutional and funding rules erected to discourage the practice, predatory publishing could be effectively put out of business through diminishing the consumer demand.

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.

Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: A scoping review

Background/Aims

It is increasingly recognised that reliance on frequent site visits for monitoring clinical trials is inefficient. Regulators and trialists have recently encouraged more risk-based monitoring. Risk assessment should take place before a trial begins to define the overarching monitoring strategy. It can also be done on an ongoing basis, to target sites for monitoring activity. Various methods have been proposed for such prioritisation, often using terms like ‘central statistical monitoring’, ‘triggered monitoring’ or, as in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidance, ‘targeted on-site monitoring’. We conducted a scoping review to identify such methods, to establish if any were supported by adequate evidence to allow wider implementation, and to guide future developments in this field of research.

Methods

We used seven publication databases, two sets of methodological conference abstracts and an Internet search engine to identify methods for using centrally held trial data to assess site conduct during a trial. We included only reports in English, and excluded reports published before 1996 or not directly relevant to our research question. We used reference and citation searches to find additional relevant reports. We extracted data using a predefined template. We contacted authors to request additional information about included reports.

Results

We included 30 reports in our final dataset, of which 21 were peer-reviewed publications. In all, 20 reports described central statistical monitoring methods (of which 7 focussed on detection of fraud or misconduct) and 9 described triggered monitoring methods; 21 reports included some assessment of their methods’ effectiveness, typically exploring the methods’ characteristics using real trial data without known integrity issues. Of the 21 with some effectiveness assessment, most contained limited information about whether or not concerns identified through central monitoring constituted meaningful problems. Several reports demonstrated good classification ability based on more than one classification statistic, but never without caveats of unclear reporting or other classification statistics being low or unavailable. Some reports commented on cost savings from reduced on-site monitoring, but none gave detailed costings for the development and maintenance of central monitoring methods themselves.

Conclusion

Our review identified various proposed methods, some of which could be combined within the same trial. The apparent emphasis on fraud detection may not be proportionate in all trial settings. Despite some promising evidence and some self-justifying benefits for data cleaning activity, many proposed methods have limitations that may currently prevent their routine use for targeting trial monitoring activity. The implementation costs, or uncertainty about these, may also be a barrier. We make recommendations for how the evidence-base supporting these methods could be improved.

Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society

A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society's decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.

Should the Regulation of Research Misconduct Be Integrated with the Ethics Framework Promulgated in The Belmont Report?

The federal research misconduct regulations finalized in 2005 did not incorporate important principles regarding human subjects protections articulated in The Belmont Report, yet research misconduct can involve harms to research subjects and to subsequent patients whose treatments are based on false research findings. Consistency with the Belmont principles would require assuring regular monitoring to detect research misconduct, tracing effects of research misconduct on trial participants and informing them of these effects, and assuring timely correction of published reports of research findings if research misconduct related to the study was subsequently discovered. Research misconduct has historically been viewed as a matter for the scientific community to manage; it is actually a threat to the welfare of human subjects and ethically ought to be treated as such.

Corporations, high-stakes biomedical research, and research misconduct: yes they can (and sometimes do)

Science has long been vulnerable to research misconduct (RM). Biomedical sciences, with vast financial stakes, carry heightened temptations. However, RM is standardly seen as an undertaking of individual scientists, not as something that could be committed by an organization such as a corporation or university. Rather, organizations are generally regarded merely as supervisors to encourage scientific integrity and investigate suspected RM. Indeed, federal regulations expressly embrace this perspective, and the federal Office of Research Integrity has never deemed an organization guilty of committing RM. This article aims to rewrite this corner of research integrity: organizations can directly commit RM and should be held accountable as such. Although the conclusions apply to organizations such as universities and government agencies, the focus here is on corporations in the biomedical sciences. After defining 'research misconduct' in Part II, Part III describes corporate-level RM and distinguishes it from individuals' misconduct. Part IV provides five case studies exemplifying corporate RM, while Part V discusses implications, describes ways in which federal regulations could already encompass organization-level RM, and identifies some needed legal and regulatory adjustments.

Exploring the organisational context of research misconduct in higher learning institutions in Malaysia

Due to the financial pressure caused by cutbacks in funding and the race to achieve higher university rankings, researchers are competing for limited funds. These funds enable researchers to contribute to the scientific enterprise and to secure better positions. Given this pressure, there is a need to understand how academic organisations can influence academic integrity. This study uses a qualitative methodology and incudes in-depth interviews with 22 voluntary participants from various Malaysian public and private universities and with different research backgrounds and experience. The findings suggest that mentorship, the pressure to perform, the research environment and research policies related to misconduct can contribute to research misconduct. According to the participants, reward systems that are heavily dependent on publication records can result in a research environment that is not conducive to research ethics, and which creates self-centred individualistic researchers rather than team players. This can lead to bad mentorship where researchers are more concerned with their own performance and do not prioritise their teaching and supervising of junior researchers. The endorsement of well-written research policies may have little significant value for research misconduct without enforcement and awareness of the importance of research integrity. This paper is an attempt to encourage university management to promote research integrity among individuals who are directly or indirectly involved in the research process by taking action against those involved in misconduct. It also suggests rewarding researchers based on their overall performance rather than solely on their publication record.

Research integrity awareness among biology students - Experience from the University of Belgrade

The importance of promoting research ethics in higher education has been widely recognized but poorly examined, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This paper reports the findings of a systematic investigation of students' knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes to research integrity among bachelor, masters-, and doctoral-level students in the Faculty of Biology at the University of Belgrade. The study was conducted as a self-administered anonymous online survey, consisting of open-ended, multiple-choice, and type-scale questions used to assess rates of knowledge and awareness of research integrity. The overall response rate was 23.4%. While biology students at all levels of the study had a high rate of knowledge about research misconduct, 4.29% admitted plagiarism, 3.28% fabrication of data, 2.78% falsification, and 1.78% presentation of the results or data in a misleading way. The level of the study among students in the Faculty of Biology was not associated with rates of knowledge and awareness on research integrity. Prior ethics training and students' research experience were associated with increased knowledge on research misconduct, faculty policies that regulate it, and attitudes and perceptions of important research integrity issues. Based on these observations, a series of recommendations for improving research ethics training are presented.

False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia

Concerned that studies contain false data, I analysed the baseline summary data of randomised controlled trials when they were submitted to Anaesthesia from February 2017 to March 2020. I categorised trials with false data as 'zombie' if I thought that the trial was fatally flawed. I analysed 526 submitted trials: 73 (14%) had false data and 43 (8%) I categorised zombie. Individual patient data increased detection of false data and categorisation of trials as zombie compared with trials without individual patient data: 67/153 (44%) false vs. 6/373 (2%) false; and 40/153 (26%) zombie vs. 3/373 (1%) zombie, respectively. The analysis of individual patient data was independently associated with false data (odds ratio (95% credible interval) 47 (17-144); p = 1.3 × 10^-12 ) and zombie trials (odds ratio (95% credible interval) 79 (19-384); p = 5.6 × 10^-9 ). Authors from five countries submitted the majority of trials: China 96 (18%); South Korea 87 (17%); India 44 (8%); Japan 35 (7%); and Egypt 32 (6%). I identified trials with false data and in turn categorised trials zombie for: 27/56 (48%) and 20/56 (36%) Chinese trials; 7/22 (32%) and 1/22 (5%) South Korean trials; 8/13 (62%) and 6/13 (46%) Indian trials; 2/11 (18%) and 2/11 (18%) Japanese trials; and 9/10 (90%) and 7/10 (70%) Egyptian trials, respectively. The review of individual patient data of submitted randomised controlled trials revealed false data in 44%. I think journals should assume that all submitted papers are potentially flawed and editors should review individual patient data before publishing randomised controlled trials.

The research misconduct post hoc inquiry as a measure of institutional integrity (DR)

The terms, institutional and scientific, integrity appeared in the literature 986 times from 2005 to 2015. How has the term integrity, with its dual definition, a) The accuracy, completeness and consistency of data and b) the adherence to a code of moral values, been applied to an institution? The authors suggest that a post hoc inquiry be instituted following the finding of an individual act of research misconduct to determine if the sponsoring institution, actively or passively, played a contributory role and if corrective action was taken. This would serve as one measure of institutional integrity.

Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research

We report on occurrence and correlates of self-reported research misconduct (RM) by 100 Kenyan researchers who had received ethics approval for an HIV research in the 5 years preceding the survey. The survey used the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised tool uploaded on a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCAP) platform. The response rate was low at 17.3% (100 out of 577) with 53.9% reporting awareness of an incident of RM in the preceding 5 years. Awareness was associated with being in academia, perception of vulnerability to being caught, and the severity of possible punishment, if discovered. Two-thirds (68.3%) reported ever-involvement in any misconduct. Self-report of involvement in misconduct was associated with knowledge of rules and procedures on RM and a disposition to support such rules and regulations. Nearly 36% reported ever-involvement infabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism (FFP). Self-report of ever-involvement in FFP was associated with number of years in the academic position, perceived likelihood of being caught, and the perceived severity of the sanctions, if caught. We conclude that the occurrence of RM is not uncommon, and efforts to create awareness about RM as well as to establish institutional structures and policies on RM are needed.

Perils of Precipitate Publication: Fraudulent and Substandard COVID-19 Research

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment highly conducive to substandard and fraudulent research. The incentives and temptations for the unethical are substantial. The articles published during 2020 in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine that were based on spurious datasets, allegedly hosted by a cloud-based health care analytics platform, are deeply confronting for research integrity. They illustrate the perils of precipitate publication, inadequate peer-reviewing and co-authorship without proper assumption of responsibility. A period of crisis such as that in existence during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for high-quality research that is robustly evaluated. It is not a time for panic to propel premature publication or for relaxation in scholarly standards. Any other approach will replicate errors of the past and result in illusory research breakthroughs to global detriment.

A proposed research misconduct policy for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries

Research misconduct policy (RMP) is a legal document that shows the definitions of the various types of misconduct, describes the inquiry and investigation of allegations, and the appropriate penalties that should be imposed. The presence of the adopted RMP on the website of a university or postgraduate college is an indication of the level of commitment to promote the proper handling of misconduct cases. Perusal of the websites of top universities in developing countries revealed that many do not have RMP on their websites. The probable starting point for combating research misconduct at the national or institutional level is by acquisition of RMP. The purpose of this article is to propose a modern, structured and cost-effective RMP for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries. The bibliographic database, PubMed, was searched using the terms 'research misconduct' and 'research misconduct policy'. All relevant articles from the search and some RMPs of universities, national agencies and global health organisations available on the Internet were carefully studied. A formulated RMP, based on the Final Rule of the United States, Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct of 2005 and the Regulations of the University Grants Commission of India of 2018, is hereby presented. In the proposed RMP, plagiarism was stratified into four levels in ascending order of severity so that imposed penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of misconduct. The zero tolerance for plagiarism in the core work areas was adopted. The proposed RMP was designed to act as a template. It should be modified as required based on the prevailing local circumstances and made fit for purpose. Universities, postgraduate colleges and journals should have RMP on the homepage of their websites.

How Chinese scientific societies should promote the construction of research integrity

Scientific societies play an important role in promoting and fostering research integrity. Through a comparative study between China and the United States based on information published over the internet, this article lays out some problems existing in Chinese scientific societies concerning the promotion of research integrity. Research integrity assumes only a minor presence in societies' policy texts, terms that are incorporated tend to be too general, and concrete action often remains superficial. To remedy these problems, this article makes five recommendations for scientific societies to put more emphasis on research integrity: (1) formulating more professional and specific norms; (2) launching dedicated columns or adding related articles in journals; (3) holding seminars and briefings; (4) setting up specialized committees; and (5) strengthening research integrity education. To supplement the realization of these goals, the article also suggests possible incentive measures.

First meeting in Asia of the Asia Pacific Research Integrity network

In 2017, the University of Hong Kong and the University of California San Diego co-hosted the first Asian meeting of the recently formed Asia Pacific Research Integrity (APRI) network in Hong Kong. Aligned with planning meetings in 2015 and 2016 funded in part by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the Hong Kong meeting was designed by a multi-national planning committee to address pressing challenges in research integrity: improving multi-national communication; exchanging information on managing misconduct investigations; and sharing best practices to promote research integrity. To create a sustainable, robust international partnership to promote research integrity in the region, the purpose of this 2017 meeting was to foster multi-national awareness, understanding, and opportunities for collaboration. The meeting was defined by four objectives that emerged from the previous meetings: (1) Articulate differences as well as areas of common ground; (2) Identify best or recommended practices; (3) Identify opportunities for research or collaboration; and (4) Set an APRI network agenda for coming years. The key anticipated outcome was to advance the conversation surrounding research integrity among academic institutions and regulators in Asian and Pacific Rim nations. This outcome was evidenced by meeting participation, participant satisfaction, and articulation of next steps for the APRI network.

A Decade of Empirical Research on Research Integrity: What Have We (Not) Looked At?

Research on research integrity has become a field of its own; yet, a comprehensive overview the field is still missing. We systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published between 2005 and 2015. We extracted the topic, methodology, focus, and citations from each articles. From the 986 articles included, only 342 report empirical data. Empirical papers predominantly targeted researchers and students. Although empirical articles questioning causes for misconduct mostly blamed research systems (e.g., pressure, competition) for detrimental research practices, articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on researchers' awareness and compliance rather than on system changes. Involving nonresearchers and reconnecting what is known to what is proposed may help research on research integrity move forward.

Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018

Introduction

Between 0.02% and 0.04% of articles are retracted. We aim to: (a) describe the reasons for retraction of genetics articles and the time elapsed between the publication of an article and that of the retraction notice because of research misconduct (ie, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism); and (b) compare all these variables between retracted medical genetics (MG) and non-medical genetics (NMG) articles.

Methods

All retracted genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification, plagiarism, duplication, unreliability, and authorship issues. Articles subject to investigation by company/institution, journal, US Office for Research Integrity or third party were also retrieved.

Results

1582 retracted genetics articles (MG, n=690; NMG, n=892) were identified . Research misconduct and duplication were involved in 33% and 24% of retracted papers, respectively; 37% were subject to investigation. Only 0.8% of articles involved both fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. In this century the incidence of both plagiarism and duplication increased statistically significantly in genetics retracted articles; conversely, fabrication/falsification was significantly reduced. Time to retraction due to scientific misconduct was statistically significantly shorter in the period 2006–2018 compared with 1970–2000. Fabrication/falsification was statistically significantly more common in NMG (28%) than in MG (19%) articles. MG articles were significantly more frequently investigated (45%) than NMG articles (31%). Time to retraction of articles due to fabrication/falsification was significantly shorter for MG (mean 4.7 years) than for NMG (mean 6.4 years) articles; no differences for plagiarism (mean 2.3 years) were found. The USA (mainly NMG articles) and China (mainly MG articles) accounted for the largest number of retracted articles.

Conclusion

Genetics is a discipline with a high article retraction rate (estimated retraction rate 0.15%). Fabrication/falsification and plagiarism were almost mutually exclusive reasons for article retraction. Retracted MG articles were more frequently subject to investigation than NMG articles. Retracted articles due to fabrication/falsification required 2.0–2.8 times longer to retract than when plagiarism was involved.

Encouraging and Rewarding the Whistleblower in Research Misconduct Cases

There are many pressures that militate against work colleagues "blowing the whistle" or "ringing the bell" on each other in respect of research misconduct. These pressures result in a significant proportion of such conduct not coming to light at all or coming to light later or less straightforwardly than is desirable. There need to be meaningful incentives for colleagues to draw to the attention of authorities concerns that they have about adherence by others to their obligations in relation to research integrity. The United States has a distinctive process under the False Claims Act which provides significant financial encouragement to such persons, known as "relators" under the qui tam scheme, including in the context of proven research misconduct. This editorial reviews prominent occasions on which qui tam actions have been taken and considers the ramifications of a US$112.5 million settlement arrived at in 2019 involving research misconduct at Duke University. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the incentives that lie at the heart of the United States False Claims Act and canvasses whether it should be emulated in other countries.

How do Chinese universities address research integrity and misconduct? A review of university documents

BACKGROUND

Scientific researchers are expected to follow the professional norms in their own domain. With a growing number of scientific publications retracted and research misconduct cases revealed in recent years, Chinese biomedical research integrity is questioned. As institutions educating and training future researchers, universities and the guidance they provide are important for the research quality and integrity of the country. Therefore, through a review of the guidance and policy documents on research integrity in Chinese universities, this work aims to investigate how the professional norms are specified in these documents.

METHODS

After a stratified sampling, 53 universities were selected. Their guidance and policy documents on research integrity were collected via a web search of their official websites. The search was confirmed by these universities. Then the content of all the collected documents were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

118 active university documents were collected and analyzed. Most of the Chinese universities we investigated had their own guidance or policy on research integrity. They listed principles or examples of desired and undesired academic practices, investigation procedures and punishments of academic misconduct, and put forward measures to promote research integrity. Differences on specific practices and principles were observed between university groups and with European university documents.

CONCLUSION

Despite the discrepancy they have, all these documents were designed to promote research integrity and cultivate a good research environment in Chinese biomedical domain. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement, for example, through more consultation of international guidance.

Personality and fatal diseases: Revisiting a scientific scandal

During the 1980s and 1990s, Hans J Eysenck conducted a programme of research into the causes, prevention and treatment of fatal diseases in collaboration with one of his protégés, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. This led to what must be the most astonishing series of findings ever published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature with effect sizes that have never otherwise been encounterered in biomedical research. This article outlines just some of these reported findings and signposts readers to extremely serious scientific and ethical criticisms that were published almost three decades ago. Confidential internal documents that have become available as a result of litigation against tobacco companies provide additional insights into this work. It is suggested that this research programme has led to one of the worst scientific scandals of all time. A call is made for a long overdue formal inquiry.

Publish and Perish: The Dangers of Being Young and in a Hurry

Publications in peer-reviewed journals are a key and official requirement for progression to a consultant surgeon post. Paradoxically, a stipulation that should enhance the importance of surgical research may, in fact, contribute to a pressure that is one of the causes of research misconduct. Consultant trainers can go some way to mitigating against this danger with appropriate teaching and an emphasis on the core values surrounding research ethics.

Under repair: A publication ethics and research record in the making

Based on fieldwork in the Committee on Publication Ethics, this paper offers an analysis of the forms of doings that publication ethics in action can take during what is called the 'Forum', a space where allegations of dubious research conduct get aired and debated between editors and publishers. This article examines recurring motifs within the review of publication practices whose ethics are called into. These motifs include: the shaping of publication ethics as an expertise that can be standardized across locations and disciplines, the separation of the research record from relations that produce it, and the divisibility of the scientific paper. Together these institute an ethics of repair at the centre of the curative enterprise of the Committee on Publication Ethics. Under the language of correcting the literature the members are working out, along with authors, what the research record should be and, inevitably, what it is. In turn, this article elicits new analytical objects that re-describe publication ethics as a form of expertise, beyond (and despite) the rehearsed axioms of this now well-established professional field.

Retraction of papers authored by Yuhji Saitoh - Beyond the Fujii phenomenon

Background and Aims:

Various aspects of retracted articles authored by Yoshitaka Fujii and their retraction notices have been examined. Yuhji Saitoh has coauthored many articles with Yoshitaka Fujii which were subsequently retracted. Japanese Society of Anesthesiology (JSA) recommends retraction of various articles by Yuhji Saitoh, but various attributes of those and their retraction notices have not been examined.

Methods:

A list of retracted articles was retrieved from PubMed, Retraction Watch Database and relevant journals. Their retraction notices were obtained from the journal's webpage. Predefined characteristics of the retracted articles and their retraction notices were evaluated against those proposed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Results:

Fifteen such articles were retracted. Two of them were not identified as retracted in the journal webpage. Half of the papers mentioned by JSA are yet to be retracted. Among those retracted, only 13.3% retraction notices were in line with the guidelines published by the COPE. Two retracted articles are yet to be flagged as retracted in PubMed. The median (interquartile range) time required for retraction from the date of declaration of being eligible for retraction is 14 (3) months. Data were analysed with Microsoft Excel™ (2007).

Conclusion:

Even after more than 1 year of recommendation, many articles containing evidence of scientific misconduct are yet to be retracted. Among those retracted, the relevant authority failed to follow the prevalent and well-regarded standards of ethics in scholarly publication.

Whistle blowing and research integrity: Potential remedy for research misconduct in Malaysian institutions of higher education

This study found that less than half of the respondents are willing to blow the whistle. The results reveal that a lack of protection with regard to the whistleblower's identity, the tedious investigative process, and the notion of avoiding confrontation, which is more apparent in Asian cultures as compared to the West, are among the reasons why individuals who witnessed misconduct chose to remain silent. Adhering to the Asian cultural upbringing where the young must respect the old, those of lower rank must obey those with higher authority, and subordinates do not question the actions of their superior, has become a norm even in the working environment. Therefore, emphasize the need for better protection for whistleblowers including using experienced individuals with a research ethics background to handle allegations from whistleblowers. In addition, established guidelines and procedures for whistleblowers with regard to voicing their allegations against colleagues engaged in research misconduct is still lacking or, to a certain extent, is still unknown to researchers. Thus, the concern indicates a need for institutions to create awareness among researchers regarding the existing platform for whistleblowers, or to develop a systematic and clear procedure which is reliable and independent to promote professionalism in academia.

Federal agencies can do more to ensure correction of the literature when research misconduct is found

Federal agencies can do more to ensure the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature including providing timely notice of misconduct findings or admissions regarding published articles, requiring the individual found guilty of misconduct to provide notice to affected journals, and to work with the journals and co-authors on making appropriate correction. The case of Andrew Cullinane underscores weakness in the current U.S. government administrative processes and the negative impact on journals.

Unethical authorship practices: A qualitative study in Malaysian higher education institutions

INTRODUCTION

To explore academia perceptions and experience with unethical authorship practices in their respective institutions.

METHOD

21 in-depth interviews were carried out.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed variability in experiences with various types of unethical authorship practices among the interviewees. Second, we found that unethical authorship practices are not so unusual among academia although the exact numbers of incidents are unknown due to the fact that such practices are seldom reported. Third, our interviewees revealed that the culture of 'publish or perish' could be the main contributor to unethical practices of authorship because publication records are the main criteria for researcher's career evaluation besides, others, which are set by the university.

CONCLUSION

It was suggested that the institution must play a proactive role in educating and promoting awareness on authorship guidelines, through education and training, ethical leadership as well as promoting the importance of publication ethics.

Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers' reflections on reporting misconduct

This article describes and discusses the views of researchers on the significance of raising concerns about scientific misconduct in their work environment and the reasons or circumstances that might deter them from doing so. In this exploratory qualitative research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 researchers working in life sciences and medicine. They represent three seniority levels and five universities across Switzerland. A large majority of respondents in this research study argued that failure to raise concerns about scientific misconduct compromises research integrity. This is an encouraging result demonstrating that researchers try to adhere to high ethical standards. However, further interaction with respondents highlighted that this correct ethical assessment does not lead researchers to take the consequent action of raising concerns. The factors that discourage researchers from raising concerns need to be addressed at the level of research groups, institutions, and by setting a positive precedent which helps them to believe in the system's ability to investigate concerns raised in a timely and professional manner. Training of researchers in research integrity related issues will have limited utility unless it is coupled with the creation of research culture where raising concerns is a standard practice of scientific and research activities.

Combating Scientific Misconduct: The Role of Focused Workshops in Changing Attitudes Towards Plagiarism

Introduction

Scientific misconduct is a global issue. There is low awareness among health professionals regarding plagiarism, particularly in developing countries, including Pakistan. There is no formal training in the ethical conduct of research or writing for under- and post-graduate students in the majority of medical schools in Pakistan. Internet access to published literature has made plagiarism easy. The aim of this study was to document the effectiveness of focused workshops on reducing scientific misconduct as measured using a modified version of the attitude towards plagiarism questionnaire (ATPQ) assessment tool.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted with participants of workshops on scientific misconduct. Demographic data were recorded. A modified ATPQ was used as a pre- and post-test for workshop participants. Data were entered in SPSS v20 (IBM< Armonk, NY, US). Frequencies and descriptive statistics were analyzed. An independent sample t-test was run to analyze differences in mean scores on pre-workshop ATPQ and differences in mean scores on post-test scores.

Results

There were 38 males and 42 females (mean age: 26.2 years) who participated in the workshops and completed the pre- and post-assessments. Most (59; 73.75%) were final-year medical students. One-third (33.8%) of the respondents had neither attended workshops related to ethics in medical research nor published manuscripts in medical journals (32.5%). More than half (55%) admitted witnessing unethical practices in research. There was a significant improvement in attitudes toward plagiarism after attending the workshop (mean difference = 7.18 (6.2), t = 10.32, P < .001).

Conclusions

Focused workshops on how to detect and avoid scientific misconduct can help increase knowledge and improve attitudes towards plagiarism, as assessed by the modified ATPQ. Students, residents, and faculty members must be trained to conduct ethical medical research and avoid all forms of scientific misconduct.

When the research is not reproducible: the importance of author-initiated and institution-driven responses and investigations

Important and potentially useful findings in the sciences are under more intense public scrutiny now more than ever. Other researchers in the field dive into replicating and expanding the findings while the media swamps the community and the public with peripheral reporting and analyses. How should authors and the hosting/funding institutions respond when other workers in the field could not reproduce or replicate their published results? To illustrate the importance of author-initiated and institution-driven investigations in response to outcries of research irreproducibility, I draw on comparisons between three recent and well-publicized cases in the life sciences: betatrophin, Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) cells, and Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute (NgAgo). Swift, transparent responses and investigations facilitate activation of the self-correcting mechanism of science and are likely also critical in preserving the community's resources, public trust, and the reputation of the institutions and individuals concerned. Operational guidelines for "author and institutional responses" towards external reports of irreproducibility should therefore be in place for all research intensive institutions.

[Research Misconduct in Japan and How It Is Covered by the Media]

　Cases of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) have been increasing worldwide, including in Japan. In particular, since 2006, many cases of research misconduct have been reported in Japan, and these cases have also been covered by the media. The 2014 case of the withdrawal of articles on STAP cells followed a rare course in which research misconduct became a full-blown social phenomenon. In recent years, even the University of Tokyo has experienced reported cases of research misconduct. In this report, I would like to introduce some representative cases of research misconduct in the field of life sciences over the past decade. These examples include studies conducted at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine (2006), Osaka University Graduate School of Frontier Bioscience (2006), Ryukyu University School of Medicine (2010), Toho University School of Medicine (2012), The University of Tokyo Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (2013), and several cases outside of Japan. I will discuss what researchers should do to reduce the incidence of research misconduct. In addition, I will discuss how these cases were covered by the media, because the public's impression of research misconduct is formed by media coverage.