Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences

A recent National Academy report on research integrity noted that policies are not evidence-based, with no formal entity responsible to attend to this deficit. Here we describe four areas of research misconduct (RM) regulations governing Public Health Service funded research that are empirically and/or ethically questionable. Policies for human subject protection, RM and conflict of interest are not harmonized, making it extremely difficult to deal with complex cases which often contain allegations in all of these areas. Second, detection of RM has depended entirely on whistleblowers in spite of evidence of significant under-reporting. Third, the scientific record is far from cleansed of the effects of falsified/fabricated work through current mechanisms of retraction. Finally, lack of fairness in the regulations may reflect lack of a Belmont Report-like document to guide ethics of RM policy. These issues are likely common in other countries. RM regulations should be harmonized with related regulations and their effectiveness tracked, open access to data for independent replication and improved statistical tests are an essential supplement to whistleblowers, correction of the scientific record will require a major effort, and further ethical analysis and guidance are as important as is empirical study for the improvement of RM regulations. Further consideration should be given to assigning current regulations for human subjects protection, RM and conflict of interest to a single authority and to the further development of a Belmont-like report of essential principles, for RM.

Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science

In recent years, identity theft has been growing in the academic world. Cybercriminals create fake profiles for prominent scientists in attempts to manipulate the review and publishing process. Without permission, some fraudulent journals use the names of standout researchers on their editorial boards in the effort to look legitimate. This opinion piece, highlights some of the usual types of identity theft and their role in spreading junk science. Some general guidelines that editors and researchers can use against such attacks are presented.

Neutralising fair credit: factors that influence unethical authorship practices

This study experimentally tests whether the techniques of neutralisation as identified in the criminal justice literature influence graduate student willingness to engage in questionable research practices (QRPs). Our results indicate that US-born graduate students are more willing to add an undeserved coauthor if the person who requests it is a faculty member in the student's department as opposed to a fellow student. Students are most likely to add an undeserving author if a faculty member is also their advisor. In addition, four techniques of neutralisation, 'diffusion of responsibility', 'defence of necessity', 'advantageous comparison' and 'euphemistic labelling', are associated with student willingness to act unethically. Participants who had received responsible conduct of research training were no less likely to commit the violation than those who had not. Knowledge of these influencing factors for QRPs will provide for opportunities to improve research ethics education strategies and materials.

Managing the "Obscene M.D.": Medical Publishing, the Medical Profession, and the Changing Definition of Obscenity in Mid-Victorian England

This article examines links between mid-Victorian opposition to commerce in popular works on sexual health and the introduction of a legal test of obscenity, in the 1868 trial R. v. Hicklin, that opened the public distribution of any work that contained sexual information to prosecution. The article demonstrates how both campaigning medical journals' crusades against "obscene quackery" and judicial and anti-vice groups who aimed to protect public morals responded to unruly trade in medical print by linking popular medical works with public corruption. When this link was codified, it became a double-edged sword for medical authorities. The Hicklin test provided these authorities with a blunt tool for disciplining professional medical behavior. However, it also radically narrowed the parameters through which even the most established practitioners could communicate medical information without risking censure.

Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation

In the academic world, peer review is one of the major processes in evaluating a scholars contribution. In this study, we are interested in quantifying the merits of different policies in a peer review process, such as single-blind review, double-blind review, and obtaining authors feedback. Currently, insufficient work has been undertaken to evaluate the benefits of different peer review policies. One of the major reasons for this situation is the inability to conduct any empirical study because data are presently unavailable. In this case, a computer simulation is one of the best ways to conduct a study. We perform a series of simulations to study the effects of different policies on a peer review process. In this study, we focus on the peer review process of a typical computer science conference. Our results point to the crucial role of program chairs in determining the quality and diversity of the articles to be accepted for publication. We demonstrate the importance of discussion among reviewers, suggest circumstances in which the double-blind review policy should be adopted, and question the credibility of the authors feedback mechanism. Finally, we stress that randomness plays an important role in the peer review process, and this role cannot be eliminated. Although our model may not capture every component of a peer review process, it covers some of the most essential elements. Thus, even the simulation results clearly cannot be taken as literal descriptions of an actual peer review process. However, we can at least still use them to identify alternative directions for future study.

Medical and scientific authorship: A conflict between discipline rules and the law

When the results of medical collaborations are to be published, questions of authorship arise. Which members of the research team are to be acknowledged as authors of the paper? In what order are they to be acknowledged? Institutional rules will generally determine the attribution of authorship to members of the research team. However, those rules are most unlikely to be consistent with the legal rules governing authorship and its attribution, most of which will apply regardless of a team's adherence to institutional rules. This article examines the meaning of authorship in the medical community, and in the legal community under the copyright laws. It considers various formulations of the institutional rules governing authorship, as well as editorial practices. Through consideration of a hypothetical scenario, the consequences of the disparity between authorship norms in law and in medicine are elaborated.

In an Age of Open Access to Research Policies: Physician and Public Health NGO Staff Research Use and Policy Awareness

INTRODUCTION

Through funding agency and publisher policies, an increasing proportion of the health sciences literature is being made open access. Such an increase in access raises questions about the awareness and potential utilization of this literature by those working in health fields.

METHODS

A sample of physicians (N=336) and public health non-governmental organization (NGO) staff (N=92) were provided with relatively complete access to the research literature indexed in PubMed, as well as access to the point-of-care service UpToDate, for up to one year, with their usage monitored through the tracking of web-log data. The physicians also participated in a one-month trial of relatively complete or limited access.

RESULTS

The study found that participants' research interests were not satisfied by article abstracts alone nor, in the case of the physicians, by a clinical summary service such as UpToDate. On average, a third of the physicians viewed research a little more frequently than once a week, while two-thirds of the public health NGO staff viewed more than three articles a week. Those articles were published since the 2008 adoption of the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as prior to 2008 and during the maximum 12-month embargo period. A portion of the articles in each period was already open access, but complete access encouraged a viewing of more research articles.

CONCLUSION

Those working in health fields will utilize more research in the course of their work as a result of (a) increasing open access to research, (b) improving awareness of and preparation for this access, and (c) adjusting public and open access policies to maximize the extent of potential access, through reduction in embargo periods and access to pre-policy literature.

Published case reports: one woman's account of having her confidentiality violated

This is a personal story regarding one woman's experience of serving as a case study protagonist and later having a psychologist uncover her identity and retell her life story in the name of scientific investigative journalism. As a participant in a psychological case report, I believed that my confidentiality would be protected. Unfortunately, this case study participant found herself in the middle of the Memory Wars, and that turned out to be the catalyst for an unwanted inquiry into my life. A well-known memory researcher hired a private investigator to find me, gained access to a great deal of private information about me, and published this in detail without my permission. I discuss in this article how these actions affected my life in some very serious ways. I raise several issues about the meaning of my experience for further case study authors and the clients whose lives they present, as well as questions about the duties of psychologists to the subjects of their research and inquiry.

A review and correction of the errors in Loftus and Guyer on Jane Doe

There are so many errors among those facts that can be checked in the Loftus and Guyer articles under review that they cast doubt on the accuracy of the alleged facts in these articles that cannot be easily checked. Loftus's and Guyer's two articles, published in a newsstand magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal, show a pattern of inaccuracy that casts doubt on their claims to have conducted a skeptical, objective inquiry. Some, but not all of these errors, were corrected in a 2009 article Geis and Loftus published in a peer-reviewed journal, although Loftus does not acknowledge in that article her earlier inaccuracies. This article corrects the record about the conclusions drawn in the Corwin and Olafson article published in 1997 and clarifies the history about Corwin's involvement in the Taus case.

First do no harm: is it any longer safe to write case reports?

This article explores the risks to authors and their clients of creating psychological literature based on case studies. The author considers how the events that occurred in Nicole Taus's case might have affected those clients with whom she wrote case studies. Finally, the author analyzes the potential losses to the field should other participants in case studies be at risk of the kind of intrusive invasion of privacy experienced by Taus and calls for the development of ethical principles for psychological science.

Research ethics and case studies in psychology: a commentary on Taus v. Loftus

Loftus and Guyer have been criticized for the methods they employed in investigating an anonymous case study published by Corwin and Olafson. This article examines the ethical dimensions of their investigation. Loftus and Guyer have offered three defenses for their actions. All three of those defenses lack merit. Their investigation did not constitute oral history because it failed to comport with the basic requirements of that practice. Their investigation did not constitute ethical journalism because of the unjustified use of anonymous sources and the clear violation of basic fairness. Their investigation did not constitute justified medical research because of a failure to analyze or weigh the harms against the benefits. Their methods also violated ethical principles for psychologists, including the rule against activities that could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity. This case demonstrates that there is no ethical way to investigate a clinical case, without the patient's approval, that is both comprehensive enough to provide strong scholarship and yet respectful enough of privacy and medical confidentiality to honor important professional norms.

Protecting scientists, science, and case protagonists: a discussion of the Taus v. Loftus commentaries

This article is a discussion of the articles by Nicole Taus Kluemper, Erna Olafson, Frank Putnam, Laura Brown, Ross Cheit, and Gerald Koocher. The papers center on the issues raised by a decision by two psychologists to break the confidentiality of a case study published by David Corwin and Erna Olafson to gather information to support an alternative theoretical view of the case. The article reviews best understandings of the justifications proposed by the psychologists, who saw themselves as investigative reporters, discusses the papers that have been submitted, and proposes enhanced ethical guidelines and increased professional discussion of these issues.

Jane Doe: a cautionary tale for case reports

Historically, clinical case reports have played an essential role in the professional communication of medical and psychiatric knowledge. Case reports continue to play important roles in the initial identification of new syndromes or unusual variants of established conditions. Case reports and case series also serve to alert clinicians to preliminary evidence of the efficacy of novel treatments or adaptations to new populations. The Jane Doe Case provides a seminal example of the ethical/medico-legal dilemma arising from a patient's right to confidentiality versus the principle of independent review/replication as a necessary requirement for scientific credibility. As a result of being the subject of dueling case reports concerning the validity of her delayed recall of childhood sexual abuse, Jane Doe's identity was revealed. Consequently, she suffered significant emotional distress, bankruptcy, and the end of her career as a naval officer and aviator. Current medical journal guidelines call for protection of confidentiality of the patient's identity; yet, scientific credibility requires the possibility of an independent outside review if there are legitimate reasons to question facts or claims advanced in a case report. A potential solution is proposed as a starting point for resolving the dilemma posed for case study subjects and authors by the conflicting requirements of patient confidentiality and, if warranted, the possibility of an independent scientific review.

Improving biomedical journals' ethical policies: the case of research misconduct

Scientific journals may incur scientific error if articles are tainted by research misconduct. While some journals' ethical policies, especially those on conflicts of interest, have improved over recent years, with some adopting a uniform approach, only around half of biomedical journals, principally those with higher impact factors, currently have formal misconduct policies, mainly for handling allegations. Worryingly, since a response to allegations would reasonably require an a priori definition, far fewer journals have publicly available definitions of misconduct. While some journals and editors' associations have taken significant steps to prevent and detect misconduct and respond to allegations, the content, visibility of and access to these policies varies considerably. In addition, while the lack of misconduct policies may prompt and maintain a de novo approach for journals, potentially causing stress, publication delays and even legal disputes, the lack of uniformity may be a matter of contention for research stakeholders such as editors, authors and their institutions, and publishers. Although each case may need an individual approach, I argue that posting highly visible, readily accessible, comprehensive, consistent misconduct policies could prevent the publication of fraudulent papers, increase the number of retractions of already published papers and, perhaps, reduce research misconduct. Although legally problematic, a concerted approach, with sharing of information between editors, which is clearly explained in journal websites, could also help. Ideally, journals, editors' associations, and publishers should seek consistency and homogenise misconduct policies to maintain public confidence in the integrity of biomedical research publications.

How can journals respond to threats of libel litigation?

Trudo Lemmens and colleagues discuss how the mere suggestion of litigation can bias the medical literature by affecting editorial decisions. They argue that journals and authors should publicly post threats of litigation, or cease and desist letters, for which there are some international legal precedents. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Case reports: Publication standards in forensic psychiatry

Psychiatrists who publish case reports are required to seek informed consent from their subjects on the basis of the ethics-related obligation to maintain patient confidentiality. Academic journals have developed editorial standards to fulfill this obligation. Forensic evaluations do not create a doctor-patient relationship in the traditional sense, and information obtained through a forensic evaluation may also be found in the public domain. This public exposure is particularly likely, given the development of open access publishing standards, online journals, and increasing professional involvement in social media. This article outlines the ethics of informed consent in published case reports for general and forensic psychiatry and offers recommendations for forensic case study publishing. The authors suggest changes in the current requirements stated in The Journal for publication of case reports.

How psychiatry journals support the unbiased translation of clinical research. A cross-sectional study of editorial policies

INTRODUCTION

Reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration.

METHOD

Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended.

RESULTS

We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number.

DISCUSSION

Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration.

[Great significance of accelerating publishing medical equipment supervision and management regulations (amendment)]

Since medical equipment supervision and management regulations (Amendment) started modification in 2005, 7 years have passed. A few days ago, the Legal Affairs Office of the State Council issued Amendment Third Draft. After studied the draft, we feel it suits the medical device regulatory practice, has a new look, and introduces many new regulatory concepts, with innovative administrative license and regulatory design, of course, the new regulatory regime will inevitably initiate many new problems, explore some new system design. Therefore, based on preliminary interpretation, we publish some experiences, throw away a brick in order to get a gem.

Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals

Background

It is not clear which research misconduct policies are adopted by biomedical journals. This study assessed the prevalence and content policies of the most influential biomedical journals on misconduct and procedures for handling and responding to allegations of misconduct.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of misconduct policies of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports in December 2011. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to misconduct policies.

Results

Of 399 journals, 140 (35.1%) provided explicit definitions of misconduct. Falsification was explicitly mentioned by 113 (28.3%) journals, fabrication by 104 (26.1%), plagiarism by 224 (56.1%), duplication by 242 (60.7%) and image manipulation by 154 (38.6%). Procedures for responding to misconduct were described in 179 (44.9%) websites, including retraction, (30.8%) and expression of concern (16.3%). Plagiarism-checking services were used by 112 (28.1%) journals. The prevalences of all types of misconduct policies were higher in journals that endorsed any policy from editors’ associations, Office of Research Integrity or professional societies compared to those that did not state adherence to these policy-producing bodies. Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell had the most journals included (22.6% and 14.8%, respectively), with Wiley journals having greater a prevalence of misconduct definition and policies on falsification, fabrication and expression of concern and Elsevier of plagiarism-checking services.

Conclusions

Only a third of top-ranking peer-reviewed journals had publicly-available definitions of misconduct and less than a half described procedures for handling allegations of misconduct. As endorsement of international policies from policy-producing bodies was positively associated with implementation of policies and procedures, journals and their publishers should standardize their policies globally in order to increase public trust in the integrity of the published record in biomedicine.

The "H5N1 publication case" and its conclusions

The request of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to the editors of the scientific journals SCIENCE and NATURE not to publish details on the modified H5N1-virus has surprisingly not caused a discussion on censorship within the scientific community (NSABB, 2012a, P.1). This may show that science generally acknowledges the necessity to cut out sensitive data from research results in publications that may serve as a manual for weapons of mass destruction. In this article the policy of the NSABB and the reaction of the scientific community is discussed, as well as the meaning of censorship in dual use research and how an appropriate organisation of future surveillance in sensitive science fields could be organised: To guarantee future undisturbed work in sensitive science fields, the establishment of an internationally organised frame for scientists dealing with dual-use-research is suggested.