Scholars and policy-makers have expressed concerns about the crediting of coauthors in research publications. Most such problems fall into one of two categories, excluding deserving contributors or including undeserving ones. But our research shows that there is no consensus on “deserving” or on what type of contribution suffices for co-authorship award. Our study uses qualitative data, including interviews with 60 US academic science or engineering researchers in 14 disciplines in a set of geographically distributed research-intensive universities. We also employ data (...) from 161 website posts provided by 93 study participants, again US academic scientists. We examine a variety of factors related to perceived unwarranted exclusion from co-author credit and unwarranted inclusion, providing an empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes. Determinants of outcomes include characteristics of disciplines and fields, institutional work culture, power dynamics and team-specific norms and decision processes. (shrink)

This study investigated the status quo of article retractions by Chinese researchers. The bibliometric information of 834 retractions from the Web of Science SCI-expanded database were downloaded and analysed. The results showed that the number of retractions increased in the past two decades, and misconduct such as plagiarism, fraud, and faked peer review explained approximately three quarters of the retractions. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the retractions seemed typical of deliberate fraud, which might be evidenced by retractions authored by repeat (...) offenders of data fraud and those due to faked peer review. In addition, a majority of Chinese fraudulent authors seemed to aim their articles which contained a possible misconduct at low-impact journals, regardless of the types of misconduct. The system of scientific evaluation, the “publish or perish” pressure Chinese researchers are facing, and the relatively low costs of scientific integrity may be responsible for the scientific integrity. We suggested more integrity education and severe sanctions for the policy-makers, as well as change in the peer review system and transparent retraction notices for journal administrators. (shrink)

The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the (...) form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed. (shrink)

The number of articles published in open access journals has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. (...) Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors, plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud/suspected fraud and invalid peer review. The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA. (shrink)

Background Clinical papers so flawed that they are eventually retracted may put patients at risk. Patient risk could arise in a retracted primary study or in any secondary study that draws ideas or inspiration from a primary study. Methods To determine how many patients were put at risk, we evaluated 788 retracted English-language papers published from 2000 to 2010, describing new research with humans or freshly derived human material. These primary papers—together with all secondary studies citing them—were evaluated using ISI (...) Web of Knowledge. Excluded from study were 468 basic science papers not studying fresh human material; 88 reviews presenting older data; 22 case reports; 7 papers retracted for journal error and 23 papers unavailable on Web of Knowledge. Overall, 180 retracted primary papers (22.8%) met the inclusion criteria. Subjects enrolled and patients treated in 180 primary studies and 851 secondary studies were combined. Results Retracted papers were cited over 5000 times, with 93% of citations being research related, suggesting that ideas promulgated in retracted papers can influence subsequent research. Over 28 000 subjects were enrolled—and 9189 patients were treated—in 180 retracted primary studies. Over 400 000 subjects were enrolled—and 70 501 patients were treated—in 851 secondary studies which cited a retracted paper. Papers retracted for fraud (n=70) treated more patients per study (p<0.01) than papers retracted for error (n=110). Conclusions Many patients are put at risk by retracted studies. These are conservative estimates, as only patients enrolled in published clinical studies were tallied. (shrink)

Recent empirical evidence has demonstrated that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree in biomedical research. It has been suggested that scientific integrity is also of concern in China, but this seems to be based largely on anecdotal evidence. We, therefore, sought to explore the Chinese situation, by making a systematic review of published empirical studies on biomedical research integrity in China. One of our purposes was also to summarize the existing body of research published in Chinese. We searched the (...) China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, PubMed and Web of Science for potentially relevant studies, and included studies meeting our inclusion criteria, i.e. mainly those presenting empirically obtained data about the practice of research in China. All the data was extracted and synthesized using an inductive approach. Twenty-one studies were included for review. Two studies used qualitative methods and nineteen studies used quantitative methods. Studies involved mainly medical postgraduates and nurses and they investigated awareness, attitudes, perceptions and experiences of research integrity and misconduct. Most of the participants in these 21 studies reported that research integrity is of great importance and that they obey academic norms during their research. Nevertheless, the occurrence of research misbehaviors, such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, improper authorship and duplicate submission was also reported. Strengthening research integrity training, developing the governance system and improving the scientific evaluation system were areas of particular attention in several studies. Our review demonstrates that a substantial number of articles have been devoted to research integrity in China, but only a few studies provide empirical evidence. With more safeguard measures of research integrity being taken in China, it would be crucial to conduct more research to explore researchers’ in-depth perceptions and evaluate the changes. (shrink)

BackgroundThe annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and to determine how journals in the cancer field handle retracted articles.MethodsWe searched three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) from database inception until 2015 for retracted journal publications related to cancer research. For each article, the reason for retraction was categorized as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, error, authorship issues, (...) or ethical issues. Accessibility of the retracted article was defined as intact, removed, or available but with a watermark over each page. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including number of citations, journal name and impact factor, study design, and time between publication and retraction. The publications were screened in duplicated and two reviewers extracted and categorized data.ResultsFollowing database search and article screening, we identified 571 retracted cancer publications. The majority (76.4%) of cancer retractions were issued in the most recent decade, with 16.6 and 6.7% of the retractions in the prior two decades respectively. Retractions were issued by journals with impact factors ranging from 0 (discontinued) to 55.8. The average impact factor was 5.4 (median 3.54, IQR 1.8–5.5). On average, a retracted article was cited 45 times (median 18, IQR 6–51), with a range of 0–742. Reasons for retraction include plagiarism (14.4%), fraud (28.4%), duplicate publication (18.2%), error (24.2%), authorship issues (3.9%), and ethical issues (2.1%). The reason for retraction was not stated in 9.8% of cases. Twenty-nine percent of retracted articles remain available online in their original form.ConclusionsRetractions in cancer research are increasing in frequency at a similar rate to all biomedical research retractions. Cancer retractions are largely due to academic misconduct. Consequences to cancer patients, the public at large, and the research community can be substantial and should be addressed with future research. Despite the implications of this important issue, some cancer journals currently fall short of the current guidelines for clearly stating the reason for retraction and identifying the publication as retracted. (shrink)

Background Medical research so flawed as to be retracted may put patients at risk by influencing treatments. Objective To explore hypotheses that more patients are put at risk if a retracted paper appears in a journal with a high impact factor (IF) so that the paper is widely read; is written by a ‘repeat offender’ author who has produced other retracted research; or is a clinical trial. Methods English language papers (n=788) retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 (...) were evaluated. Only those papers retracting research with humans or freshly derived human material were included; 180 retracted primary papers (22.8%) met inclusion criteria. Subjects enrolled and patients treated were tallied, both in the retracted primary studies and in 851 secondary studies that cited a retracted primary paper. Results Retracted papers published in high-IF journals were cited more often (p=0.0004) than those in low-IF journals, but there was no difference between high- and low-IF papers in subjects enrolled or patients treated. Retracted papers published by ‘repeat offender’ authors did not enrol more subjects or treat more patients than papers by one-time offenders, nor was there a difference in number of citations. However, retracted clinical trials treated more patients (p=0.0002) and inspired secondary studies that put more patients at risk (p=0.0019) than did other kinds of medical research. Conclusions If the goal is to minimise risk to patients, the appropriate focus is on clinical trials. Clinical trials form the foundation of evidence-based medicine; hence, the integrity of clinical trials must be protected. (shrink)

Individuals engage in moral cleansing, a compensatory process to reaffirm one's moral identity, when one's moral self-concept is threatened. However, too much moral cleansing can license individuals to engage in future unethical acts. This study examined the effects of incentives and consequences of one's actions on cheating behavior and moral cleansing. Results found that incentives and consequences interacted such that unethical thoughts were especially threatening, resulting in more moral cleansing, when large incentives to cheat were present and cheating explicitly harmed (...) others. Implications are discussed in terms of ethics training, using incentives as motivators, and the depersonalized norms of science. (shrink)

Practices related to research misconduct seem to have been multiplied in recent years. Many cases of scientific fraud have been exposed publicly, and journals and academic institutions have deployed different measures worldwide in this regard. However, the influence of specific social and cultural environments on scientific fraud may vary from society to society. This article analyzes how scientists in Japan deal with accusations of scientific fraud. For such a purpose, a series of scientific fraud cases that took place in Japan (...) has been reconstructed through diverse sources. Thus, by analyzing those cases, the social basis of scientific fraud and the most relevant aspects of Japanese cultural values and traditions, as well as the concept of honour which is deeply involved in the way Japanese scientists react when they are accused of and publicly exposed in scientific fraud situations is examined. (shrink)

Along with economic strength, space technology and software expertise, India is also a leading nation in fraudulent scientific research. The problem is worsened by vested interests working in concert for their own benefits. These self-promoting cartels, together with biased evaluation methods and weak penal systems, combine to perpetuate scientific misconduct. Some of these issues are discussed in this commentary, with supporting examples and possible solutions.

African researchers and their collaborators have been making significant contributions to useful research findings and discoveries in Africa. Despite evidence of scientific misconduct even in heavily regulated research environments, there is little documented information that supports prevalence of research misconduct in Africa. Available literature on research misconduct has focused on the developed world, where credible research integrity systems are already in place. Public attention to research misconduct has lately increased, calling for attention to weaknesses in current research policies and regulatory (...) frameworks. Africa needs policies, structural and governance systems that promote responsible conduct of research. To begin to offset this relative lack of documented evidence of research misconduct, contributors working in various research institutions from nine African countries agreed to share their experiences to highlight problems and explore the need to identify strategies to promote research integrity in the African continent. The experiences shared include anecdotal but reliable accounts of previously undocumented research misconduct, including some ‘normal misbehavior’ of frontline staff in those countries. Two broad approaches to foster greater research integrity are proposed including promotion of institutional and individual capacity building to instil a culture of responsible research conduct in existing and upcoming research scientist and developing deterrent and corrective policies to minimize research misconduct and other questionable research practices. By sharing these experiences and through the strategies proposed, the authors hope to limit the level of research misconduct and promote research integrity in Africa. (shrink)

This chapter describes the potential far‐reaching consequences of contemplative higher education for the fields of science and medicine.

Media attention to retracted research suggests that a substantial number of papers are corrupted by misinformation. In reality, every paper contains misinformation; at issue is whether the balance of correct versus incorrect information is acceptable. This paper postulates that analysis of retracted research papers can provide insight into medical misinformation, although retracted papers are not a random sample of incorrect papers. Error is the most common reason for retraction and error may be the principal cause of misinformation as well. Still, (...) one-quarter of retracted papers are fraudulent, and misinformation may also arise through fraud. This paper hypothesises that error and fraud are the main sources of misinformation and that error is more common than fraud. Retraction removes misinformation from the literature; bias is non-retracted misinformation. Bias arises when scientific impropriety results in false research findings. Impropriety can involve experimental design, data collection, data analysis, or data presentation. Yet impropriety also arises through earnest error or statistical naiveté; not all bias is fraud. Several measures are proposed to minimise misinformation in the medical literature, including: greater detail in the clinical trial registry, with rigorous definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria and primary endpoints; clear statistical criteria for every aspect of clinical trials, especially sample size; responsibility for data integrity that accrues to all named authors; increased transparency as to how the costs of research were paid; and greater clarity as to the reasons for retraction. Misinformation can arise without malicious intent; authors of incorrect papers are owed a presumption of incompetence, not malice. (shrink)

El propósito de este artículo es explorar la respuesta editorial de las revistas ante artículos de investigación que puedan contener errores metodológicos o ser casos de fraude. 17.244 artículos comentados en PubPeer, una web de revisión post-publicación, fueron procesados y clasificados de acuerdo a diferentes errores y categorías de fraude. Luego, la respuesta editorial (i.e., notas editoriales) a estas publicaciones fueron extraídas de PubPeer, Retraction Watch and PubMed para obtener la imagen más amplia. Los resultados muestran que solo 21,5% de (...) los artículos que merecen una nota editorial (i.e., errores honestos, fallos metodológicos, fraude en la publicación, manipulación) fueron corregidos por la revista. Este porcentaje podría subir a 34% para las publicaciones de 2019. Esta respuesta es muy diferente entre revistas, pero similar entre disciplinas. Otro resultado interesante es que las revistas de alto impacto sufren más de manipulación de imágenes, mientras que el fraude en la publicación es más frecuente en revistas de bajo impacto. El estudio concluye con la observación de que las revistas deben mejorar su respuesta a artículos problemáticos. (shrink)