Scientific integrity is a cornerstone of credible research and academic advancement in Vietnamese universities, encompassing adherence to ethical principles of honesty, transparency, and accountability in research practices. This study aims to investigate how lecturers and students in Vietnam perceive research misconduct behaviors. By employing a quantitative approach, it provides insights into the current state of research misconduct within the Vietnamese universities through a questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale. We collected 444 valid responses from lecturers and students at universities in (...) Vietnam, with 52.5% from students and 47.5% from lecturers. The findings show that lecturers and students have high perceptions of research misconduct in three aspects: implementation of scientific research projects, academic publication, and evaluation of scientific research projects. Additionally, the perceptions of research misconduct among lecturers in social sciences and humanities are significantly higher than those in other fields, including health sciences, economics and business administration, and natural sciences, engineering, and technology, respectively. These findings play a crucial role in empowering higher educational institutions and academic communities to elevate lecturers and students’ perceptions of research misconduct, ultimately fostering a robust culture of integrity in Vietnam. (shrink)

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

Reasons underlying retractions of papers authored by the Iran-affiliated highly cited researchers have not been documented. Here, we report that 229 of the Iran-affiliated researchers were listed by the Clarivate Analytics as HCRs. We investigated the Retraction Watch Database and found that, in total, 51 papers authored by the Iran-affiliated HCRs were retracted from 2006 to 2019. Twenty-three of the 229 HCRs had at least one paper retracted. One of the listed HCRs had 22 papers retracted; 14 of the 23 (...) had only one paper retracted. Among the 51 retracted papers, three had been authored by two female authors. Eight retracted papers had international co-authorships. The shortest and longest times from publication to retraction were 20 and 2610 days, respectively. Of the 51 papers, 43 had a single reason for retraction, whereas eight had multiple reasons. Among the 43 papers, 23 were retracted due to fake peer-review, eight were duplications, six had errors, four had plagiarism, and two were labelled as “limited or no information.” Duplication of data, which is easily preventable, amounted to 27%. Any publishing oversight committed by an HCR may not be tolerated because they represent the stakeholders of the scientific literature and stand as role-models for other peer researchers. Future policies supporting the Iranian academia should radically change by implementation of educational and awareness programs on publishing ethics to reduce the rate of retractions in Iran. (shrink)

Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To (...) effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM. (shrink)

As the burden of misconduct in medical research is increasingly recognised, questions have been raised about how best to address this problem. Whilst there are existing mechanisms for the investigation and management of misconduct in medical literature, they are inadequate to deal with the magnitude of the problem. Journal editors and publishers play an essential role in protecting the veracity of the medical literature. Whilst ethical guidance for journal editors and publishers is important, it is not as readily enforceable as (...) legal obligations might be. This article questions the legal obligations that might exist for journal editors and publishing companies with respect to ensuring the veracity of the published literature. Ultimately, there is no enforceable legal obligation in Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. In light of this, more robust mechanisms are needed to deliver greater confidence and transparency in the investigative process, the management of concerns or findings of misconduct and the need to cleanse the literature. We show that the law disincentivises journals and publishers from ensuring truth in their publications. There are harmful consequences for medical care and public confidence in the medical profession and health care system when the foundations of medical science are questionable. (shrink)