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.

Human-Written vs AI-Generated Texts in Orthopedic Academic Literature: Comparative Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

As large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into different aspects of health care, questions about the implications for medical academic literature have begun to emerge. Key aspects such as authenticity in academic writing are at stake with artificial intelligence (AI) generating highly linguistically accurate and grammatically sound texts.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare human-written with AI-generated scientific literature in orthopedics and sports medicine.

METHODS

Five original abstracts were selected from the PubMed database. These abstracts were subsequently rewritten with the assistance of 2 LLMs with different degrees of proficiency. Subsequently, researchers with varying degrees of expertise and with different areas of specialization were asked to rank the abstracts according to linguistic and methodological parameters. Finally, researchers had to classify the articles as AI generated or human written.

RESULTS

Neither the researchers nor the AI-detection software could successfully identify the AI-generated texts. Furthermore, the criteria previously suggested in the literature did not correlate with whether the researchers deemed a text to be AI generated or whether they judged the article correctly based on these parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary finding of this study was that researchers were unable to distinguish between LLM-generated and human-written texts. However, due to the small sample size, it is not possible to generalize the results of this study. As is the case with any tool used in academic research, the potential to cause harm can be mitigated by relying on the transparency and integrity of the researchers. With scientific integrity at stake, further research with a similar study design should be conducted to determine the magnitude of this issue.

The ethics of expert communication

Despite its public visibility and impact on policy, the activity of expert communication rarely receives more than a passing mention in codes of scientific integrity. This paper makes the case for an ethics of expert communication, introducing a framework where expert communication is represented as an intrinsically ethical activity of a deliberative agent. Ethical expert communication cannot be ensured by complying with various requirements, such as restricting communications to one's area of expertise or disclosing conflicts of interest. Expert communication involves morally laden trade-offs that must be weighed by a deliberative agent. A basic normative framework is introduced, and concrete provisions are proposed for codes of scientific integrity.

Development of a Comprehensive Food Data Citation Standard: A Surprising Gap in the Nutrition Research Literature

Currently, there is no standard for the citation of food composition data. This leads to the questions: how are food and nutrient data cited in research papers, and are they presented in a way that allows studies to be reproduced? To answer these questions, we performed a review of the literature and quantified the accuracy and completeness of data citations from publications (January to December 2020) in the top 5 nutrition journals as ranked by the Scimago Journal Rankings. We then performed a review of citation guidelines currently in place in other disciplines. Similar to the requirement of completing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for systematic reviews, we have developed a comprehensive data citation checklist, the Comprehensive Food Data Citation (CFDC) checklist. The CFDC checklist was developed through a benchmarking assessment against established data citation standards. Its purpose is to establish a standardized, best-practice approach for reporting food composition data. The CFDC checklist has been designed to cater to both publishers and authors, ensuring consistency and accuracy in food composition data reporting. The CFDC checklist is also available as an interactive citation generator to facilitate the adoption of consistent and comprehensive citation of food composition data and is available at https://www.nutrientinstitute.org/cfdc. Despite general agreement that accurate data citation is paramount, this is the first citation standard specifically developed to capture food composition data. Because food composition data are the foundation of nutrition research, our proposed guidelines aim to provide the field with a much-needed foundation for acknowledging and sharing data in a way that fosters reproducibility.

The impact of "Five No's for Publication" on academic misconduct

China initiated the "Five No's for Publication" in December 2015 as a response to rising incidents of retraction. Use the number of retracted publications and their original publication time as proxies to investigate the effect of the Five No's policy on academic misconduct. We searched the Retraction Watch Database for research articles published by Chinese scholars from 1 March 2010 to 29 February 2020. The short- and long-term trends of the number of publications were presented by conducting an interrupted time series analysis in quarterly time units. Of 4,215 retracted papers with Chinese authors, 2,881 involving academic misconduct were identified. In the first quarter (12.01.2015-02.29.2016) after the implementation of the Five No's, an average reduction of 55.80 (p < 0.001) publications that involve academic misconduct was observed, although there was an increase in the trend of publications of 3.34 per quarter (p < 0.01) in the long run (12.01.2015-02.29.2020), relative to the pre-intervention period (03.01.2010-11.30.2015). The validity of these results was further supported by three different robustness checks. China's government should strengthen enforcement, promote education, and improve the scientific evaluation system to consolidate the influence of the Five No's policy and foster an ethical research environment.

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

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

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

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

An unethical trial and the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: The case of Prevent Senior

The Brazilian Federal Senate created a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (CPI) to investigate the Bolsonaro government's irregularities in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the cases that drew attention was the research conducted by Prevent Senior, a private health insurance company, on the early treatment of COVID-19. The article analyzes the scientific validity of the research and the ethical problems related to its implementation. It is based on analysis of Prevent Senior's report of the clinical study, the Brazilian and USA clinical trial registries, the Senate's CPI report, and on the information reported by the media. This case of scientific fraud and political-ideological bias exemplifies how Prevent Senior, using a questionable protocol to enhance its reputation and gain government support, was instrumental in building the "early treatment" narrative for COVID-19, and shows how it served as a basis for a government public policy that promoted the use of ineffective drugs.

Protecting the integrity of survey research

Although polling is not irredeemably broken, changes in technology and society create challenges that, if not addressed well, can threaten the quality of election polls and other important surveys on topics such as the economy. This essay describes some of these challenges and recommends remediations to protect the integrity of all kinds of survey research, including election polls. These 12 recommendations specify ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses. Many of these recommendations align practice with the scientific norms of transparency, clarity, and self-correction. The transparency recommendations focus on improving disclosure of factors that affect the nature and quality of survey data. The clarity recommendations call for more precise use of terms such as “representative sample” and clear description of survey attributes that can affect accuracy. The recommendation about correcting the record urges the creation of a publicly available, professionally curated archive of identified technical problems and their remedies. The paper also calls for development of better benchmarks and for additional research on the effects of panel conditioning. Finally, the authors suggest ways to help people who want to use or learn from survey research understand the strengths and limitations of surveys and distinguish legitimate and problematic uses of these methods.

The 12 Rs Framework as a Comprehensive, Unifying Construct for Principles Guiding Animal Research Ethics

Animal research ethics and animal welfare in science have become progressively tightly regulated, and ethical integrity and scientific quality, as well as social responsiveness and responsibility have become key requirements for research to be approved, funded, published, and accepted. The multitude of factors to contemplate has in some instances not only become complex, requiring a team approach, but often perceived as confusing and overwhelming. To facilitate a process of simplistic yet comprehensive conceptualization, we developed the 12 Rs Framework to act as a mind map to guide scientists, oversight structures, and other stakeholders through the myriad of ethical considerations. It unfolds into three domains of twelve encompassing ethical principles, values, and other considerations, including the animal welfare, social values, and scientific integrity domains, whilst also recognizing the diversity of local context, legal requirements, values, and cultures around the globe. In the end, it can be seen as a unifying ethical framework to foster and promote animal research ethics.

An Update to Scientific Decision Making: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Scientific Integrity Principles

In 2015, the Council on Research published their vision for scientific decision making which provided nutrition and dietetics practitioners and practitioners-in-training key information on the Academy's newly developed scientific integrity principles (SIP). Given that it has been 7 years since the original publication, it was felt the original 6 principles should be revisited and updated. From the subcommittee on Scientific Integrity Principles under the Council on Research, the 2015 principles were evaluated and updated with new literature and best practices for maintaining SIP. After this review process, four new/updated principles were approved by the Council on Research. These include 1) the ethical conduct of research and protection of human subjects, 2) funder's influence on the research question/methodology/education content and conflicts of interest, 3) review of research-related materials, and 4) maintain and promote a culture of scientific integrity. Moreover, it became clear that newer topics including diversity, equity, and inclusion should be woven throughout the principles. This article presents the newly updated principles and resources related to SIP. We envision that this document can be used by the Academy to educate members and serve as a guide to incorporate these principles into all research practices and at all levels of dietetics practice.

What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences

What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists' perspectives, including research participants'. 1873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if (mostly) common research practices were applied to their data: p-hacking/cherry-picking results, selective reporting of studies, Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing), committing fraud, conducting direct replications, sharing data, sharing methods, and open access publishing. An overwhelming majority of psychology research participants think questionable research practices (e.g. p-hacking, HARKing) are unacceptable (68.3-81.3%), and were supportive of practices to increase transparency and replicability (71.4-80.1%). A surprising number of participants expressed positive or neutral views toward scientific fraud (18.7%), raising concerns about data quality. We grapple with this concern and interpret our results in light of the limitations of our study. Despite the ambiguity in our results, we argue that there is evidence (from our study and others') that researchers may be violating participants' expectations and should be transparent with participants about how their data will be used.

What's Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation

The discovery of efficacious treatment options for neuropsychiatric conditions is a process that remains in jeopardy. Contributing to the failure of clinical trials, a strong positive bias exists in the reported results of preclinical studies, including in the field of neuroscience. However, despite clear recognition of major factors that lead to bias, efforts to address them have not made much meaningful change, receiving inadequate attention from the scientific community. In truth, little real-world value is currently attached to efforts made to oppose positive bias, and instead-partially driven by competitive conditions-the opposite has become true. Since pressures throughout our system of scientific discovery, particularly those tied to definitions of individual success, hold these damaging practices firmly in place, we urgently need to make changes to the system itself. Such a transformation should include a pivot away from explicit or tacit requirements for statistical significance and clean narratives, particularly in publishing, and should promote a priori power calculations as the determinant of final sample size. These systemic changes must be reinforced and upheld in responsible decisions made by individual scientists concerning the planning, analysis, and presentation of their own research.

Unresolved COVID Controversies: 'Normal science' and potential non-scientific influences

ABSTRACTThe COVID-19 health crisis has so far involved enormous consequences in human pain, suffering and death. While biomedical science responded early, its response has been marked by several controversies between what appeared to be mainstream perspectives, and diverse alternative views; far from leading to productive debate, controversies often preceded polarisation and, allegedly, exclusion and even censorship of alternative views, followed by the pretense of scientific consensus. This paper describes and discusses the main controversies in the production of COVID biomedical knowledge and derived control measures, to establish if alternative positions are also legitimate from a 'normal science' perspective (rather than comparing them for superiority); explores potential non-scientific explanations of the alleged exclusion of certain views; and analyzes ethical issues implied. The operation of non-scientific factors in scientific and regulatory processes (e.g. various forms of subtle corruption) has been documented in the past; the intervention of such influences in the mishandling of controversies (i.e. on early management, non-pharmacological prevention and vaccination) cannot be ruled out and deserves further investigation. Some of these controversies, increasingly visible in the public domain, also involve ethical challenges that need urgent attention. Polarisation, censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be left behind.

Online Research Participant Communication: Balancing Benefits and Risks

Online communication has emerged as an important vehicle for participant interaction during the course of clinical research. At the same time, such communication has been identified as a source of risks both for participants and the scientific integrity of clinical trials. Although strategies for mitigating these risks have become a focus in the research community, missing from the discussion has been a sustained and sympathetic effort to understand the various benefits of online communication for participants themselves. In this article, we provide a taxonomy of the benefits of online communication for participants and argue that attempts to mitigate the risks of online communication by discouraging or placing limits on such communication are generally unadvisable. Instead, we advance a context-sensitive approach that emphasizes education and several actionable recommendations for preserving the benefits of online participant communities while mitigating the risks.

How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This "how-to" guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students, but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. It begins with an overview of responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research in order to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions, and that researchers receive fair credit. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Truth even unto its innermost parts

Challenging anyone who spreads falsehoods is an important part of respecting the truth in both science and the wider world.

Spanish Scientists' Opinion about Science and Researcher Behavior

We surveyed 348 Psychology and Education researchers within Spain, on issues such as their perception of a crisis in Science, their confidence in the quality of published results, and the use of questionable research practices (QRP). Their perceptions regarding pressure to publish and academic competition were also collected. The results indicate that a large proportion of the sample of Spanish academics think there is a crisis in Science, mainly due to a lack of economic investment, and doubts the quality of published findings. They also feel strong pressure to publish in high impact factor journals and a highly competitive work climate.

Perspective: US Documentation and Regulation of Human Nutrition Randomized Controlled Trials

Training to ensure good documentation practices and adherence to regulatory requirements in human nutrition randomized controlled trials has not been given sufficient attention. Furthermore, it is difficult to find this information conveniently organized or in a form relevant to nutrition protocols. Current gaps in training and research surveillance exist in clinical nutrition research because training modules emphasize drugs and devices, promote reliance on monitoring boards, and lack nutrition expertise on human nutrition research teams. Additionally, because eating is essential, ongoing, and highly individualized, it is difficult to distinguish risks associated with interventions from eating under free-living conditions. Controlled-feeding trials provide an option to gain more experimental control over food consumed, but at a price of less external validity, and may pose human behavior issues that are unrelated to the intervention. This paper covers many of the expected practices for documentation and regulation that may be encountered in planning and conducting nutrition intervention trials with examples and references that should be useful to clinical nutrition researchers, funders of research, and research institutions. Included are definitions and guidance on clinical nutrition research oversight (institutional review boards, data safety and monitoring boards, US FDA); participant safety; standard operating procedures; training of investigators, staff, and students; and local culture and reporting requirements relevant to diet-related clinical research conduct and documentation.

A survey of early-career researchers in Australia

Early-career researchers (ECRs) make up a large portion of the academic workforce and their experiences often reflect the wider culture of the research system. Here we surveyed 658 ECRs working in Australia to better understand the needs and challenges faced by this community. Although most respondents indicated a 'love of science', many also expressed an intention to leave their research position. The responses highlight how job insecurity, workplace culture, mentorship and 'questionable research practices' are impacting the job satisfaction of ECRs and potentially compromising science in Australia. We also make recommendations for addressing some of these concerns.

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.

The scientist and the advertisement: Reklamegutachten in imperial Germany

In late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Germany, the integration of product-evaluating certificates and reports (Gutachten) into advertisements triggered repeated condemnations of "advertisement-Gutachten" (Reklamegutachten), and scientists and science administrators introduced various restrictions to prevent the appearance of such documents. At the same time, the provision of Gutachten to private individuals and firms seemed crucial to the success of many private and public laboratories. Some chemical and other professionals, moreover, argued that the authoring and use of Reklamegutachten could represent a "scientific" and, therefore, ethical practice. By examining the contested history of the advertisement-Gutachten, this article reveals how a previously tolerated knowledge service lost its legitimacy in a particular place and period of time, and highlights the challenges of eliminating this practice or restoring its legitimacy afterward. The article also explores how professional scientists' approaches to maintaining a reputation for integrity in the face of commercial and competitive pressures related to the better-known efforts of professionals in other fields, particularly the medical. I emphasize that, in determining whether a Gutachten qualified as scientific, the nature and transparency of the underlying research process was only one of the criteria that were considered, and often not the most significant yardstick. At the same time, however, ideas about the personal and professional/institutional integrity of providers of Gutachten were inextricably connected with assessments of the honesty and objectivity of their research.

Perspective: Design and Conduct of Human Nutrition Randomized Controlled Trials

In the field of human nutrition, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for establishing causal relations between exposure to nutrients, foods, or dietary patterns and prespecified outcome measures, such as body composition, biomarkers, or event rates. Evidence-based dietary guidance is frequently derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these RCTs. Each decision made during the design and conduct of human nutrition RCTs will affect the utility and generalizability of the study results. Within the context of limited resources, the goal is to maximize the generalizability of the findings while producing the highest quality data and maintaining the highest levels of ethics and scientific integrity. The aim of this document is to discuss critical aspects of conducting human nutrition RCTs, including considerations for study design (parallel, crossover, factorial, cluster), institutional ethics approval (institutional review boards), recruitment and screening, intervention implementation, adherence and retention assessment, and statistical analyses considerations. Additional topics include distinguishing between efficacy and effectiveness, defining the research question(s), monitoring biomarker and outcome measures, and collecting and archiving data. Addressed are specific aspects of planning and conducting human nutrition RCTs, including types of interventions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, participant burden, randomization and blinding, trial initiation and monitoring, and the analysis plan.

Responsible Science and Research Animal Use

This issue of the ILAR Journal focuses on the topic of responsible science as it relates to animal research. We start with the concept of the scientist as a responsible citizen and then move through multiple phases of research including careful experimental planning, reporting, and incorporation of laboratory animal science. The work of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or animal ethical/oversight body in reviewing both animal use and contributing to scientific excellence is explored. Additional topics include protection of animal handlers from multiple experimental hazards, use of agricultural animals and wildlife studies, regulatory ambiguities, and harmonization of animal research. Rounding out the issue is a discussion of how animal care and use programs can enhance animal welfare while mitigating regulatory burden, and our responsibility to clearly communicate the ethical use of animals in advancing biomedical research. A deeper understanding of these topics can assist scientists in simultaneously advancing their research and animal welfare.

Signaling the trustworthiness of science

Trust in science increases when scientists and the outlets certifying their work honor science's norms. Scientists often fail to signal to other scientists and, perhaps more importantly, the public that these norms are being upheld. They could do so as they generate, certify, and react to each other's findings: for example, by promoting the use and value of evidence, transparent reporting, self-correction, replication, a culture of critique, and controls for bias. A number of approaches for authors and journals would lead to more effective signals of trustworthiness at the article level. These include article badging, checklists, a more extensive withdrawal ontology, identity verification, better forward linking, and greater transparency.

Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.

Responsible conduct of research: enhancing local opportunities

INTRODUCTION

Research integrity is the foundation of credible research and a pre-requisite for a successful academic research environment. Lately, a lot of revelations of fraud and other unacceptable behaviour in research have been highly publicized in scientific journals and mass media. Whereas institutions in developed countries have developed guidelines and regulations to ensure responsible conduct of research and appropriately deal with cases of research misconduct, low- and middle-income countries seem to be lagging behind. In Uganda, there seems to be lack of coordinated efforts to address the problem of research misconduct both at the national and institutional level.

OBJECTIVE

To propose a framework for fostering scientific integrity and deterring misconduct in research in Ugandan research and academic institutions.

METHODS

A review of literature on scientific integrity, scientific misconduct, responsible conduct of research, and international ethical guidelines was done.

RESULTS

Basing on the 2012 Inter-Academy Council policy report, initiatives to promote responsible conduct of research in Ugandan research and academic institutions are proposed.

CONCLUSION

With the proposed framework, an honest and trustworthy research enterprise in Uganda based on principles of scientific integrity is envisioned.

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

Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources-the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.

Peer review: from recognition to improved practices

Scientific publishing has experienced profound changes in recent years, such as the advent of open-access journals, the increasing use of preprint archives or post-publication blogs, to name a few. One pillar still remains: peer review as a key ingredient that, in most cases, contributes to clarity and quality, often detecting errors and misinterpretations. Unfortunately, peer review is poorly recognized and good reviewers are rather a 'rare avis'. Even worse, this necessary task in science is generally overlooked in curricula and post-graduate education. Some considerations should help us all to ameliorate greatly our understanding and duties.

Enhancements Needed in GE Crop and Food Regulation in the U.S

Genetically engineered (GE) crops, multi-ingredient foods derived from one or more GE ingredients, and GE agricultural inputs are regulated in the United States under a "Coordinated Framework" that was literally cobbled together in the early 1990s. Via this Framework, responsibility is spread across three federal agencies for the assessment and management of potential risks arising from the planting of GE crops, the raising of GE animals, or uses of GE inputs. The Framework was incomplete and conceptually flawed from the beginning. Despite multiple, piecemeal efforts to update aspects of GE risk assessment and regulatory policy, the Coordinated Framework survives to this day largely unchanged. Its shortcomings are recognized in both the scientific and legal communities, but meaningful reforms thus far remain out of reach, blocked by the intense controversy now surrounding all things biotech. Five generic reforms and another five specific initiatives are described to create a more robust, science-driven GE regulatory infrastructure in the U.S.

Perceptions that influence the maintenance of scientific integrity in community-based participatory research

Scientific integrity is necessary for strong science; yet many variables can influence scientific integrity. In traditional research, some common threats are the pressure to publish, competition for funds, and career advancement. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides a different context for scientific integrity with additional and unique concerns. Understanding the perceptions that promote or discourage scientific integrity in CBPR as identified by professional and community investigators is essential to promoting the value of CBPR. This analysis explores the perceptions that facilitate scientific integrity in CBPR as well as the barriers among a sample of 74 professional and community CBPR investigators from 25 CBPR projects in nine states in the southeastern United States in 2012. There were variations in perceptions associated with team member identity as professional or community investigators. Perceptions identified to promote and discourage scientific integrity in CBPR by professional and community investigators were external pressures, community participation, funding, quality control and supervision, communication, training, and character and trust. Some perceptions such as communication and training promoted scientific integrity whereas other perceptions, such as a lack of funds and lack of trust could discourage scientific integrity. These results demonstrate that one of the most important perceptions in maintaining scientific integrity in CBPR is active community participation, which enables a co-responsibility by scientists and community members to provide oversight for scientific integrity. Credible CBPR science is crucial to empower the vulnerable communities to be heard by those in positions of power and policy making.

Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science

With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses.

Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Public Health, Epidemiological and Clinical Research

The ethics and scientific integrity of biomedical and public health research requires that researchers behave in appropriate ways. However, this requires more than following of published research guidelines that seek to prevent scientific misconduct relating to serious deviations from widely accepted scientific norms for proposing, conducting, and reporting research (e.g., fabrication or falsification of research data or failures to report potential conflicts of interest). In this paper we argue for a broader account of scientific integrity, one consistent with that defended by the United States Institute of Medicine, involving a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions as a researcher and to practices consistent with the responsible conduct of research and protection of the research participants. Maintaining high standards of ethical and scientific integrity helps to maintain public trust in the research enterprise. An increasing number of authors have pointed to the importance of mentoring and education in relation to the responsible conduct of science in preventing transgressions of scientific integrity. Just like in clinical research and biomedicine, epidemiologists and other public health researchers have the responsibility to exhibit and foster the very highest standards of scientific integrity.

Ethics in 15 min per week

The demand for science trainees to have appropriate responsible conduct of research instruction continues to increase the attention shown by federal agencies and graduate school programs to the development of effective ethics curriculums. However, it is important to consider that the main learning environment for science graduate students and post-doctoral research fellows is within a laboratory setting. Here we discuss an internal laboratory program of weekly 15-minute ethics discussions implemented and used over the last 3 years in addition to the graduate school's program of scientific integrity training. During this time, the environment and culture within our laboratory has changed to place greater emphasis on the ethical implications of our own research and the research we evaluate. We still struggle with how to accurately assess this behavioral change; although, we present preliminary survey results on the evaluation and impact of this style of curriculum for ethics instruction in our laboratory.

Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: emerging consensus on key assessment criteria

OBJECTIVES

We examined the extent to which consensus exists on the criteria that should be used for assessing the credibility of a scientific work, regardless of its funding source, and explored how these criteria might be implemented.

DATA SOURCES

Three publications, all presented at a session of the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, have proposed a range of criteria for evaluating the credibility of scientific studies. At least two other similar sets of criteria have recently been proposed elsewhere.

DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS

In this article we review these criteria, highlight the commonalities among them, and integrate them into a list of 10 criteria. We also discuss issues inherent in any attempt to implement the criteria systematically.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations by many scientists and policy experts converge on a finite list of criteria for assessing the credibility of a scientific study without regard to funding source. These criteria should be formalized through a consensus process or a governmental initiative that includes discussion and pilot application of a system for reproducibly implementing them. Formal establishment of such a system should enable the debate regarding chemical studies to move beyond funding issues and focus on scientific merit.