ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Papers

Sort list by:


(China) A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged (Papers: Katrina A. Bramstedt & Jun Xu | September 2019)

Abstract Background Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on... More

Abstract Background Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on Chinese journals active in donation and transplant publishing regarding the evolution of their publishing guidelines. Methods Eleven Chinese journals were analyzed for 7 properties: (1) ethics committee approval; (2) procedure consent; (3) publishing consent; (4) authorship criteria; (5) conflict of interest; (6) duplicate publication; and (7) data integrity. Results were compared with our 2008 study data. Additionally, open access status, impact factor, and MEDLINE-indexing were explored. Results Most journals heightened the ethical requirements for publishing, compared to the results of 2008. All 11 now require their published manuscripts to have data integrity. Ten of 11 require ethics committee approval and informed consent for the publication of research studies, whereas in the original study only 2 journals evidenced these requirements. Nine of 11 have criteria for authorship, require conflict of interest disclosure, and forbid duplicate publishing. None of the journals have a policy to exclude data that was obtained from unethical organ donation practices. Nine of 11 journals are MEDLINE-indexed but only 2 are open-access. Conclusions Most journals have improved their general ethical publishing requirements but none address unethical organ donation practices. Keywords: China; Informed consent; Organ donation; Publishing; Research ethics; Research integrity

Bramstedt, K. and Xu, J. (20019) (China) A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged. Research Integrity and Peer Review 4(17) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3. Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine (Papers: Christian Simon, et al 02 June 2019)

Published/Released on June 02, 2019 | Posted by Admin on September 2, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices (Papers: Valerie Matarese and Karen Shashok | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 03, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed (Papers: July 2019)

Published/Released on July 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 20, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

[colored_box]There are currently no clear guidelines on how to proceed when a retracted article is selected in the systematic review process. The Cochrane handbook provides information only on how to identify retracted articles within the scientific literature, instead of clear guidance and criteria for inclusion in the systematic review... More

[colored_box]There are currently no clear guidelines on how to proceed when a retracted article is selected in the systematic review process. The Cochrane handbook provides information only on how to identify retracted articles within the scientific literature, instead of clear guidance and criteria for inclusion in the systematic review or not [1]. Other guidelines for conducting systematic reviews do not address this topic [2,3]. Common sense would indicate the exclusion from a systematic review of a study that was retracted because of faked or unreliable data [4]. .

Faggion, C. M., Jr. "More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.006 Publisher: https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30573-6/abstract

Less

View full details | Go to resource


AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing (Papers: American Medical Writers Association, et al | July 2019)

Published/Released on July 29, 2019 | Posted by Admin on August 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) and the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) recognize the challenges to scientific publishing being posed by predatory journals and their publishers, which employ practices undermining the quality, integrity and reliability of published scientific research. This... More

The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) and the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) recognize the challenges to scientific publishing being posed by predatory journals and their publishers, which employ practices undermining the quality, integrity and reliability of published scientific research. This joint position statement complements several other sets of guidelines that have helped define the characteristics of a predatory journal1–

American Medical Writers Association, European Medical Writers Association & International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (2019) AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP joint position statement on predatory publishing,Current Medical Research and Opinion,35:9, 1657-1658,10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1646535

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science (Papers – preprint: Luis Morís Fernández Miguel Vadillo | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 26, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 31, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey (Papers: Kelly D Cobey, et al | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 23, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. More

Abstract Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. Design An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. Participants Using Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. Results Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. Conclusions This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial Cobey KD, Grudniewicz A, Lalu MM, et al Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey. BMJ Open 2019;9:e026516. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516 Publisher (Open Access): https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/3/e026516 Less

View full details | Go to resource


On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct (Vijay Mohan | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 08, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 18, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Highlights

  • There exists a Prisoners’ Dilemma in academia, where researchers engage in misconduct in equilibrium.
  • Conventional “centralized” solutions under the current system may not work.
  • New advances in distributed ledger technology, like blockchain, provide a decentralized alternative.
  • The incentive structures in... More

    Highlights

    • There exists a Prisoners’ Dilemma in academia, where researchers engage in misconduct in equilibrium.
    • Conventional “centralized” solutions under the current system may not work.
    • New advances in distributed ledger technology, like blockchain, provide a decentralized alternative.
    • The incentive structures in academia may necessitate a solution involving a permissioned blockchain.
    • Open Science is necessary to fight misconduct.
    Abstract Current incentives for publishing in academic journals result in a “winner-take-all” contest-like situation, with significant benefits for publishing research in quality journals. At the same time, empirically, we observe a greater incidence of research misconduct. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the nature and extent of the misconduct problem, to show why it may persist in the absence of conscious remedial action, and to discuss solutions that help lower the likelihood of spurious research escaping undetected. A simple model is constructed to emphasize that there exists the potential for a Prisoners’ Dilemma in academia, where scholars engage in misconduct at equilibrium (the Academic Dilemma). The paper then examines why conventional “centralized” regulatory solutions under the current system are not likely to succeed in resolving the problem, analyzes the properties of a decentralized solution utilizing blockchains, and argues that once incentive structures in academia are factored in, a permissioned blockchain may emerge as an effective middle-ground solution for mitigating scientific misconduct. In doing so, the paper highlights the importance of new technologies and recent advancements in Open Science for battling misconduct, and takes stock of the evolving nature of academic publishing. Keywords Academic misconduct, Prisoners’ dilemma, Blockchain, Open science, Decentralized cooperation

    Mohan, V. (2019) On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct. Research Policy. 48(9), November 2019, 103805 Publisher: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733319301258

    Less

    View full details | Go to resource


Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles (Papers: Evanthia Kaimaklioti Samota and Robert P. Davey | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on July 16, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract We constructed a survey to understand how authors and scientists view the issues around reproducibility, and how solutions such as interactive figures could enable the reproducibility of experiments from within a research article. This manuscript reports the results of this survey on the views of... More

Abstract We constructed a survey to understand how authors and scientists view the issues around reproducibility, and how solutions such as interactive figures could enable the reproducibility of experiments from within a research article. This manuscript reports the results of this survey on the views of 251 researchers, including authors who have published in eLIFE Sciences, and those who work at the Norwich Biosciences Institutes (NBI). The survey also outlines to what extent researchers are occupied with reproducing experiments themselves and what are their desirable features of an interactive figure. Respondents considered various features for an interactive figure within a research article that would allow for them to better understand and reproduce in situ the experiment presented in the figure. Respondents said that the most important element that would enable the better reproducibility of published research would be that authors describe methods and analyses in detail. The respondents believe that having interactive figures in published papers is a beneficial element. Whilst interactive figures are potential solutions for demonstrating technical reproducibility, we find that there are equally pressing cultural demands on researchers that need to be addressed to achieve greater success in reproducibility in the life sciences.

Samota, E. K. and R. P. Davey (2019). Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles. bioRxiv: 581033. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/581033 Publisher: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/581033v2 This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Authorship inflation and author gender in pulmonology research (Blake Umberham, et al | October 2018)

Published/Released on October 18, 2018 | Posted by Admin on July 12, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Introduction Honorary authorship and equal gender representation are two pressing matters in scientific research. Honorary authorship is the inclusion of authors who do not meet the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The inclusion of... More

Abstract Introduction Honorary authorship and equal gender representation are two pressing matters in scientific research. Honorary authorship is the inclusion of authors who do not meet the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The inclusion of honorary authors in the medical literature has led to an increase of the number of authors on studies and a decrease in single author studies in various fields. Methods Our primary objective was to assess authorship trends in two major pulmonology journals (selected on the basis of Google Scholar rankings): Thorax and American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. We reviewed all articles published in both journals in the years 1994, 2004, and 2014 using Web of Science and extracted data such as number of authors and gender of the first and last authors. Results The total number of authors steadily increased from 1994 to 2014. The median number of authors grew from about four in 1994 to nearly seven in 2014, which is approximately a 75% increase. When we compiled all the data, we found the percentage of female authors from both journals had increased from 17% to 29.9% during the study period. Discussion We found an increase in the average number of authors on pulmonology publications between 1994 and 2014 as well as an increase in the number of females with a lead or main author position. This may be due to a variety of factors, such as increased team science. However, our data in conjunction with data from other areas of medicine, indicate that honorary authorship may be contributing to the trends we identified.

Umberham, B., et al. (2018). "Authorship inflation and author gender in pulmonology research." bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/446385 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/446385v1.full

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A peer review card exchange game (Papers: Ružica Tokalićb & Ana Marušić | August 2018)

Published/Released on August 01, 2018 | Posted by Admin on July 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract Introduction: Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed... More

Abstract Introduction: Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed a card exchange game based on responsibility and integrity in peer review for a hands-on training session. Methods: We used the approach for the development of training materials about responsible research and innovation developed by the HEIRRI project, and the principles of the card game for the popularisation of the philosophy of science. Results: We created 32 card statements about peer review, distributed across 6 domains: Responsiveness, Competence, Impartiality, Confidentiality, Constructive criticism and Responsibility to science. We adapted the instructions for the game and tested the game during the peer review school at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, May 2018. The feedback by the participants was very positive. Conclusions: The Peer Review Card Exchange Game could be used as an introductory activity for teaching integrity and ethics in peer review training. Keywords Peer review, training, card game, research integrity

Tokalićb, R. & Marušić, A (2018) A peer review card exchange game. Journal: European Science Editing. 44(3) August 2018 Publisher (Open Access): http://europeanscienceediting.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ESEAug18_origarticle.pdf Supplement: ESE Peer Review Card Exchange Game_Supplement 1 Cards Supplement 2: ESE Peer Review Card Exchange Game_Supplement 2 Instructions

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2, resource #3


Guidelines for open peer review implementation (Paper: Tony Ross-Hellauer and Edit Görögh | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 27, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 28, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a... More

Abstract Open peer review (OPR) is moving into the mainstream, but it is often poorly understood and surveys of researcher attitudes show important barriers to implementation. As more journals move to implement and experiment with the myriad of innovations covered by this term, there is a clear need for best practice guidelines to guide implementation. This brief article aims to address this knowledge gap, reporting work based on an interactive stakeholder workshop to create best-practice guidelines for editors and journals who wish to transition to OPR. Although the advice is aimed mainly at editors and publishers of scientific journals, since this is the area in which OPR is at its most mature, many of the principles may also be applicable for the implementation of OPR in other areas (e.g., books, conference submissions). Keywords Peer review, Guidelines, Open peer review, Scholarly publishing, Open science

Ross-Hellauer, T. and Görögh, E. (2019) Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 4(4) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9 Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Establishing Rules for Ethicists and Ethics Organizations in Academic Publishing to Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism (Papers: Dr. János Tóth, et al | May 2019)

Abstract: A proliferation of publication venues, scholarly journals, use of social media to disseminate knowledge and research results, scientific information, increased international scientific collaboration, a move towards open knowledge and data sharing, recent scandals such as journal editors’ coercive citations, fake peer review, peer review rings, data... More

Abstract: A proliferation of publication venues, scholarly journals, use of social media to disseminate knowledge and research results, scientific information, increased international scientific collaboration, a move towards open knowledge and data sharing, recent scandals such as journal editors’ coercive citations, fake peer review, peer review rings, data fabrication, research spin, and retraction of articles, several of the latter within the emergence of a post publication peer review movement, are some of the many reasons why publishing ethics are constantly evolving. These challenges have led to the birth of an increasing number of guidelines and recommendations being issued by multiple organizations and committees around the world in light of the recognized need to salvage peer review, and in an attempt to restore eroding trust in science, scientists and their publications. The principal objective of these guidelines and recommendations is supposedly to provide guidance for editors, reviewers and authors to conduct honest and ethical research and publishing practices, including responsible authorship and editorship, conflict of interest management, maintaining the confidentiality of peer review, and other ethical issues that arise in conducting and reporting research. Despite the fact that scholarly publishing is an international enterprise with global impact, current guidelines and recommendations appear to fall very short on imposing any obligations on their parent members, i.e., committee members who issue guidelines and recommend solutions for ethical dilemmas especially when such organizations are dependent on commercial publishers who may be paying members. Obviously, financial incentives indicate that ethical organizations or ethicists are not in a power position compared to editors or publishers. Imbalanced guidelines risk that hidden conflicts of interest, cronyism, or nepotism may corrupt the decision-making process or the ethical hierarchy that has been put into place to safe-guard research and publishing ethics. Therefore, the ethics gate-keepers to the integrity of scholarly publishing should also be carefully scrutinized, and strict ethical guidelines have to be imposed on them as equally as their rules are imposed on global academia to avoid the risk of further corrupting the scientific process as a result of the absence of strong exterior regulation or oversight. This theoretical paper highlights signs of favoritism and cronyism in ethics. It also offers proposals for rules (limitations and consequences) to avoid them in science publishing. Our guidelines should be used by academics in the position of authors or editors who may sense, perceive or detect abuses of power among ethicists. Keywords: organization ethics; ethical dilemmas; corruption; conflict of interest

Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Katavić, V., Dobránszki, J., Al-Khatib, A. and Bornemann-Cimenti, Hel (2019) Establishing Rules for Ethicists and Ethics Organizations in Academic Publishing to Avoid Conflicts of Interest, Favoritism, Cronyism and Nepotism. KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry. ISSN 2063-7330 Publisher (Open Access): http://komejournal.com/files/KOME_MS_rulesethicists.pdf ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333311739_Establishing_Rules_for_Ethicists_and_Ethics...

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates (Papers: Richard Sever, et al | June 2019)

Published/Released on June 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 10, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv represent a highly successful and relatively low cost mechanism for providing free access to research findings. By decoupling the dissemination of manuscripts from the much slower process of evaluation and certification by journals, preprints also significantly accelerate the... More

Abstract Preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv represent a highly successful and relatively low cost mechanism for providing free access to research findings. By decoupling the dissemination of manuscripts from the much slower process of evaluation and certification by journals, preprints also significantly accelerate the pace of research itself by allowing other researchers to begin building on new results immediately. If all funding agencies were to mandate posting of preprints by grantees—an approach we term Plan U (for “universal”)—free access to the world’s scientific output for everyone would be achieved with minimal effort. Moreover, the existence of all articles as preprints would create a fertile environment for experimentation with new peer review and research evaluation initiatives, which would benefit from a reduced barrier to entry because hosting and archiving costs were already covered.

Sever, R., Eisen, M., Inglis, J. (2019) Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates. PLoS Biology 17(6): e3000273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000273 Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000273

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Reviewer-coerced citation: Case report, update on journal policy, and suggestions for future prevention (Papers: Jonathan D Wren, et al | January 2019)

Published/Released on January 30, 2019 | Posted by Admin on June 8, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

A case was recently brought to the journal’s attention regarding a reviewer who had requested a large number of citations to their own papers as part of their review. After investigation of their most recent reviews, we found that in every review this reviewer requested an average of 35... More

A case was recently brought to the journal’s attention regarding a reviewer who had requested a large number of citations to their own papers as part of their review. After investigation of their most recent reviews, we found that in every review this reviewer requested an average of 35 citations be added, ∼90% of which were to their own papers and the remainder to papers that both cited them extensively and mentioned them by name in the title. The reviewer’s phrasing strongly suggested that inclusion of these citations would influence their recommendation to the editor to accept or reject the paper. The reviewer was unable to provide a satisfactory justification for these requests and Bioinformatics has therefore banned them as a reviewer. Our investigation also suggests that the reviewer has behaved similarly in reviewing for other journals. This case has alerted us to how the peer-review system is vulnerable to unethical behavior, and prompted us to clarify the journal’s policy on when it is appropriate for reviewers to request citations to their own work, and to suggest how some of the current weak points in the peer-review system can be mitigated, so that this behavior can be detected more quickly and efficiently.

Wren, J.D., Valencia, A. & Kelso, J. Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention, Bioinformatics, , btz071, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071 Publisher (Open Access): https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071/5304360

Less

View full details | Go to resource


“Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola (Papers: Sarah Steele| May 2019)

Published/Released on May 08, 2019 | Posted by Admin on May 27, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents,... More

Abstract Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers’ final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements. Keywords Coca-Cola Research funding Transparency Industry funding Conflicts of interest

Steele, S., Ruski, G,. McKee, M. & Stuckler, D. (2019). "Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola. Journal of Public Health Policy. Publisher (Open Access): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41271-019-00170-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Pernicious Effects of Compression Plagiarism on Scholarly Argumentation (Papers: M. V. Dougherty | April 2019)

Published/Released on April 12, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Despite an increased recognition that plagiarism in published research can take many forms, current typologies of plagiarism are far from complete. One under-recognized variety of plagiarism—designated here as compression plagiarism—consists of the distillation of a lengthy scholarly text... More

Abstract Despite an increased recognition that plagiarism in published research can take many forms, current typologies of plagiarism are far from complete. One under-recognized variety of plagiarism—designated here as compression plagiarism—consists of the distillation of a lengthy scholarly text into a short one, followed by the publication of the short one under a new name with inadequate credit to the original author. In typical cases, compression plagiarism is invisible to unsuspecting readers and immune to anti-plagiarism software. The persistence of uncorrected instances of plagiarism in all its forms—including compression plagiarism—in the body of published research literature has deleterious consequences for the reliability of scholarly communication. Not the least of these problems is that original authors are denied credit for their discoveries. When unsuspecting researchers read articles that are the products of plagiarism, they unwittingly engage the arguments of hidden original authors through the proxy of plagiarists. Furthermore, when these researchers later publish responses to the plagiarizing articles, not knowing they are engaging products of plagiarism, they create additional inefficiencies and redundancies in the body of published research. This article analyzes a suspected instance of compression plagiarism that appeared within the pages of this journal and considers the particular ways in which plagiarism of this variety weakens the quality of scholarly argumentation, with special attention paid to the field of philosophy.

Keywords Compression plagiarism Authorship Research misconduct Retractions Argumentation Scholarly communication 

Dougherty, M.V. (2019) The Pernicious Effects of Compression Plagiarism on Scholarly Argumentation. Argumentation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09481-3 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-019-09481-3

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Commentary: a broader perspective on the RePAIR consensus guidelines (Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record) (Papers: Zoë H. Hammatt | December 2018)

Published/Released on April 14, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 14, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

View full details


RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record (Papers: Collaborative Working Group from the conference “Keeping the Pool Clean… | December 2018)

Abstract The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms to correct the literature, much time and money is wasted on research based on... More

Abstract The progression of research and scholarly inquiry does not occur in isolation and is wholly dependent on accurate reporting of methods and results, and successful replication of prior work. Without mechanisms to correct the literature, much time and money is wasted on research based on a crumbling foundation. These guidelines serve to outline the respective responsibilities of researchers, institutions, agencies, and publishers or editors in maintaining the integrity of the research record. Delineating these complementary roles and proposing solutions for common barriers provide a foundation for best practices. Keywords Research integrity, Retractions, Researchers, Publishers, Editors, Agencies, Institutions, Research misconduct, International, Communication

Research Integrity and Peer Review - RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record. Research Integrity and Peer Review 2018, 3:15 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1 Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Research Misconduct in East Asia’s Research Environments (Papers: Hee-Je Bak | June 2018)

Published/Released on June 01, 2018 | Posted by Admin on April 6, 2019 | Keywords: , , ,

High-profile cases of scientific misconduct, such as the Hwang scandal in South Korea, the Obokata scandal in Japan, and the growing number of retracted papers written by Chinese scientists have led to a new interest in research misconduct in East Asia. Since research misconduct is by no means rare... More

High-profile cases of scientific misconduct, such as the Hwang scandal in South Korea, the Obokata scandal in Japan, and the growing number of retracted papers written by Chinese scientists have led to a new interest in research misconduct in East Asia. Since research misconduct is by no means rare in the history of science, some observers may view them merely as indicative of increased research activity in this region. From this perspective, research misconduct tends to result in blaming and punishing individual scientists. However, if we subscribe to the precept of STS that scientists’ behavior is embedded in their social and cultural contexts, we may use research misconduct to apprehend the distinctive social and cultural contexts of scientific practices. In other words, the investigation of research misconduct in East Asia is a valuable opportunity for the STS community to discuss the social and cultural environment that shapes research practices in this region. Drawing on three cases of research misconduct in Japan, South Korea, and China, this special issue highlights the social and cultural environments surrounding each case rather than the scientific misconduct itself. Local biologicals are a promising way of capturing the influence of social and cultural environments of a specific location on scientific practices. Sarah Franklin has explained stem cell science as a global biological enterprise interwoven with local biologicals. She described a local biological as practices in stem cell science that reflect “specific national and economic priorities, moral and civic values, and technoscientific institutional cultures” (Franklin 2005, 61). Using the concept of local and global biologicals, Koichi Mikami’s article in this issue highlights the importance of social and institutional culture to understand a case of research misconduct. She addresses the stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell scandal, often called the Obokata scandal, in Japan where Haruko Obokata and her colleagues at RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology (CDB) published two papers in Nature on a new method to reprogram differentiated somatic cells to be pluripotent, or capable of becoming any type of cell in the body, but soon these papers were retracted. Mikami focuses on how Japan’s socioinstitutional culture influences the reactions of society to Obokata’s claim of the existence of STAP cells, instead of her individual misbehavior. She notes the influence of Shinya Yamanaka’s success on stem cell science in Japan. Obokata’s work attracted media attention in Japan partly because it claimed to extend Yamanaka’s work on iPS cells. As a Nobel Prize winner, Yamanaka was a young hero in Japan and brought high expectations for stem cell research not only in the stem cell research community but also in the Japanese government and the public. According to Mikami, the initial enthusiasm for Obokata and her colleagues’ successful experiment on STAP cells reflected the high expectation for stem cell research in Japan since Yamanaka’s success in 2007, which constitutes a local biological.

Bak, HJ. (2018) Research Misconduct in East Asia’s Research Environments. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 12 (2): 117-122. https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-6577620 Publisher (Open Access): https://read.dukeupress.edu/easts/article/12/2/117/133940/Research-Misconduct-in-East-Asia-s-Research

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Publish and Perish: The Dangers of Being Young and in a Hurry (Papers: James S. Huntley | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 19, 2019 | Posted by Admin on April 5, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract Publications in peer-reviewed journals are a key and official requirement for progression to a consultant surgeon post. Paradoxically, a stipulation that should enhance the importance of surgical research may, in fact, contribute to a pressure that is one of the causes of research misconduct. Consultant trainers can... More

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

Huntley J S (February 19, 2019) Publish and Perish: The Dangers of Being Young and in a Hurry. Cureus 11(2): e4098. doi:10.7759/cureus.4098 Publisher (Editorial): https://www.cureus.com/articles/17575-publish-and-perish-the-dangers-of-being-young-and-in-a-hurry

[colored_box] Less

View full details | Go to resource


The impact on authors and editors of introducing Data Availability Statements at Nature journals ( Papers: Rebecca Grant & Iain Hrynaszkiewicz | December 2018)

Published/Released on December 27, 2018 | Posted by Admin on April 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Abstract

This article describes the adoption of a standard policy for the inclusion of data availability statements in all research articles published at the Nature family of journals, and the subsequent research which assessed the impacts that these policies had on authors, editors,... More

Abstract

This article describes the adoption of a standard policy for the inclusion of data availability statements in all research articles published at the Nature family of journals, and the subsequent research which assessed the impacts that these policies had on authors, editors, and the availability of datasets. The key findings of this research project include the determination of average and median times required to add a data availability statement to an article; and a correlation between the way researchers make their data available, and the time required to add a data availability statement.

Grant, R. & Hrynaszkiewicz, I. (2018)  The impact on authors and editors of introducing Data Availability Statements at Nature journals. International Journal of Digital Curation. 13(1) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.614 Publisher: http://www.ijdc.net/article/view/614

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at? (Papers: Noémie Aubert Bonn & Wim Pinxten | March 2019)

Published/Released on March 04, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 20, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract In the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe... More

Abstract In the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe methods, trends, publishing patterns, and impact of a decade of research on research integrity. To give a comprehensive overview of research on research integrity, we first systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published in English between 2005 and 2015. We then classified each relevant article according to its topic, several methodological characteristics, its general focus and findings, and its citation impact. We included 986 articles in our analysis. We found that the body of literature on research integrity is growing in importance, and that the field is still largely dominated by non-empirical publications. Within the bulk of empirical records (N=342), researchers and students are most often studied, but other actors and the social context in which they interact, seem to be overlooked. The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system. Our review highlights the areas, methods, and actors favoured in research on research integrity, and reveals a few blindspots. Involving non-researchers and reconnecting what is known to the approaches investigated may be the first step to generate executable knowledge that will allow us to increase the success of future approaches.

Bonn, N.A. & Pinxten, W. (2019) A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at? bioRxiv. 567263; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/567263 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/567263v1

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(US) Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct? (Papers: David B. Resnik | February 2019)

Published/Released on February 01, 2019 | Posted by Admin on March 9, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Persistent Underrepresentation of Women’s Science in High Profile Journals (Papers: Yiqin Alicia Shen, et al | 2018)

Published/Released on March 02, 2018 | Posted by Admin on March 7, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Past research has demonstrated an under-representation of female editors and reviewers in top scientific journals, but very few studies have examined the representation of women authors within original research articles. We collected research article publication records from 15 high-profile multidisciplinary and neuroscience journals for 2005-2017... More

Abstract [colored_box]Past research has demonstrated an under-representation of female editors and reviewers in top scientific journals, but very few studies have examined the representation of women authors within original research articles. We collected research article publication records from 15 high-profile multidisciplinary and neuroscience journals for 2005-2017 and analyzed the representation of women over time, as well as its relationship with journal impact factor. We found that 1) Women authors have been persistently underrepresented in high-profile journals. This under-representation has persisted over more than a decade, with glacial improvement over time. 2) The percent of female first and last authors is negatively associated with a journal's impact factor. Since publishing in high-profile journals is a gateway to academic success, this underrepresentation of women may contribute to the lack of women at the top of the scientific academic ladder.

Shen YA., Webster JM., Shoda Y (2018) Persistent Underrepresentation of Women's Science in High Profile Journals. bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/275362 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/02/275362

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Whitepaper: Practical challenges for researchers in data sharing (David Stuart, et al | September 2018)

Published/Released on March 21, 2018 | Posted by Admin on March 4, 2019 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Ten considerations for open peer review (Papers: Birgit Schmidt, et al |

Published/Released on June 29, 2018 | Posted by Admin on January 26, 2019 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and... More

Abstract Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community. Keywords open peer review, open science, good practice, research integrity

Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X and Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:969 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15334.1)

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Institutional Conflict of Interest Policies at U.S. Academic Research Institutions (Papers: David B. Resnik, et al | 2016)

Published/Released on February 01, 2016 | Posted by Admin on January 11, 2019 | Keywords: , ,

[colored_box]Abstract Purpose Institutional conflicts of interest (ICOIs) occur when the institution or leaders with authority to act on behalf of the institution have conflicts of interest (COIs) that may threaten the objectivity, integrity, or trustworthiness of research because they could impact institutional decision... More

[colored_box]Abstract Purpose Institutional conflicts of interest (ICOIs) occur when the institution or leaders with authority to act on behalf of the institution have conflicts of interest (COIs) that may threaten the objectivity, integrity, or trustworthiness of research because they could impact institutional decision making. The purpose of this study was to gather and analyze information about the ICOI policies of the top 100 U.S. academic research institutions, ranked according to total research funding. . Method From May–June 2014, the authors attempted to obtain ICOI policy information for the top 100 U.S. academic research institutions from publicly available Web sites or via e-mail inquiry. If an ICOI policy was not found, the institutions' online COI policies were examined. Data on each institution's total research funding, national funding rank, public versus private status, and involvement in clinical research were collected. The authors developed a coding system for categorizing the ICOI policies and used it to code the policies for nine items. Interrater agreement and P values were assessed. Results Only 28/100 (28.0%) institutions had an ICOI policy. ICOI policies varied among the 28 institutions. Having an ICOI policy was positively associated with total research funding and national funding ranking but not with public versus private status or involvement in clinical research. Conclusions Although most U.S. medical schools have policies that address ICOIs, most of the top academic research institutions do not. Federal regulation and guidance may be necessary to encourage institutions to adopt ICOI policies and establish a standard form of ICOI review.

Resnik, D. B., Ariansen, J. L., Jamal, J., & Kissling, G. E. (2016). Institutional Conflict of Interest Policies at U.S. Academic Research Institutions. Academic medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 91(2), 242-6. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000980 Publisher: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FACM.0000000000000980 HHS Public access: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4731244/

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions (John P. Walsh | 2018)

Published/Released on November 10, 2018 | Posted by Admin on December 17, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract Science is increasingly a team activity, and the size of the teams has been growing. At the same time, there are concerns about an increasing rate of pathologies in science. The growth of team science suggests the need to look beyond individual-level explanations and focus... More

Abstract Science is increasingly a team activity, and the size of the teams has been growing. At the same time, there are concerns about an increasing rate of pathologies in science. The growth of team science suggests the need to look beyond individual-level explanations and focus on organizational structures and institutional contexts to explain pathologies in science. Drawing on the literature on organizational pathologies, we argue that division of labor may be a key factor contributing to pathologies in science. Furthermore, we examine the effects of high-stakes incentives and of institutional corruption as additional predictors of scientific pathologies. Using retractions as an indicator of pathologies, and drawing on a matched sample of 195 retracted papers and 349 paired papers that were not retracted, we develop indicators of the division of labor in the team that produced a paper and find that the rate of retractions is higher as the division of labor increases (net of team size). Additionally, we find that high-stakes incentives and institutional corruption are also associated with increased retractions. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for science policy, in particular for organizing team science projects. Keywords Organization, Science, Pathologies, Corruption, Incentives, Division of labor

Walsh, J. P., et al. (2019). Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions. Research Policy 48(2): 444-461. Publisher: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733318302129 Conference: https://appam.confex.com/appam/2018/webprogram/Paper26758.html

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration (Papers: Zen Faulkes | 2018)

Published/Released on November 16, 2018 | Posted by Admin on November 19, 2018 | Keywords: , , ,

Abstract Background Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are... More

Abstract Background Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution. Main body When authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals’ authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes. Conclusion Rather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members. Keywords Authorship, Alternative dispute resolution

Faulkes, Z. (2018) Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 3:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0057-z Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0057-z

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Should research fraud be a crime? (Zulfiqar A Bhutta and Julian Crane | 2014)

Published/Released on July 15, 2014 | Posted by Admin on October 28, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Zulfiqar A Bhutta says that criminal sanctions are necessary to deter growing deliberate research misconduct, which can ultimately harm patients. Julian Crane disagrees: he doubts that sanctions will have any deterrent effect and worries that criminalisation would undermine trust

Bhutta, Z. A. and J. Crane (2014).... More

Zulfiqar A Bhutta says that criminal sanctions are necessary to deter growing deliberate research misconduct, which can ultimately harm patients. Julian Crane disagrees: he doubts that sanctions will have any deterrent effect and worries that criminalisation would undermine trust

Bhutta, Z. A. and J. Crane (2014). "Should research fraud be a crime?" BMJ : British Medical Journal 349 Publisher: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4532

Audio https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/158806647/download?client_id=LBCcHmRB8XSStWL6wKH2HPACspQlXg2P

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct? (Papers: Stephanie Harriman and Jigisha Patel | 2014)

Published/Released on August 16, 2014 | Posted by Admin on October 10, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Text recycling, also referred to as self-plagiarism, is the reproduction of an author’s own text from a previous publication in a new publication. Opinions on the acceptability of this practice vary, with some viewing it as acceptable and efficient, and others as misleading and unacceptable.... More

Abstract Text recycling, also referred to as self-plagiarism, is the reproduction of an author’s own text from a previous publication in a new publication. Opinions on the acceptability of this practice vary, with some viewing it as acceptable and efficient, and others as misleading and unacceptable. In light of the lack of consensus, journal editors often have difficulty deciding how to act upon the discovery of text recycling. In response to these difficulties, we have created a set of guidelines for journal editors on how to deal with text recycling. In this editorial, we discuss some of the challenges of developing these guidelines, and how authors can avoid undisclosed text recycling. The guidelines can be found here: http://media.biomedcentral.com/content/editorial/BMC-text-recycling-editorial_guidelines.pdf Keywords: Text recycling, Self-plagiarism, Publication ethics, Transparency, Guidelines

Harriman, S., & Patel, J. (2014). Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct? BMC Medicine, 12, 148. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0148-8 Publisher (Open Access): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243367/

Access the great resource paper it refers to

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Urology Clinical Practice Guidelines (Papers: Austin Carlisle, et al | September 2018)

Published/Released on May 07, 2018 | Posted by Admin on October 1, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Background Recent studies have highlighted the presence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines. Objective We sought to determine to what extent urology guideline authors receive and report industry payments in accordance with... More

Abstract Background Recent studies have highlighted the presence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines. Objective We sought to determine to what extent urology guideline authors receive and report industry payments in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Design, setting, and participants We selected the 13 urology guidelines that were published by the American Urological Association (AUA) after disclosure was mandated by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Payments received by guideline authors were searched independently by two investigators using the Open Payments database. Outcome measures and statistical analysis Our primary outcome measure was the number of authors receiving payments from industry, stratified by amount thresholds. Our secondary outcome measure was the number of authors with accurate conflict of interest disclosure statements. Results and limitations We identified a total of 54 author disclosures. Thirty-two authors (59.3%) received at least one payment from industry. Twenty (37.0%) received >$10 000 and six (11.1%) received >$50 000. Median total payments were $578 (interquartile range $0–19 228). Twenty (37.0%) disclosure statements were inaccurate. Via Dollars for Docs, we identified $74 195.13 paid for drugs and devices directly related to guideline recommendations. We were limited in our ability to determine when authors began working on guideline panels, as this information was not provided, and by the lack of specificity in Dollars for Docs. Conclusions Many of the AUA guideline authors received payments from industry, some in excess of $50 000. A significant portion of disclosure statements were inaccurate, indicating a need for more stringent enforcement of the AUA disclosure policy. Patient summary Pharmaceutical company payments to doctors have been shown to influence how doctors treat patients. If these doctors are charged with making clinical recommendations to other doctors, in the form of clinical practice guidelines, the issue of industry payments becomes more severe. We found that many urologists on guideline panels receive money from industry and that a significant portion did not disclose all payments received.

Carlisle, A., et al. (2018). "Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Urology Clinical Practice Guidelines." European Urology 74(3): 348-354. Publisher (Open Access): https://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(18)30329-4/fulltext

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities (Papers: Tennille L. Marley | 2018)

Abstract American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk... More

Abstract American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. Keywords Indigenous data sovereignty, American Indian and Alaska Native, Indigenous people, qualitative data

Marley, T. L. "Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities." American Behavioral Scientist 0(0): 0002764218799130. Publisher: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764218799130#articleCitationDownloadContainer

Less

View full details | Go to resource


(UK) UK House of Commons committee wants to make sure “university investigations into research misconduct are handled appropriately” – Retraction Watch (C. K. Gunsalus | July 2018)

Published/Released on July 10, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 25, 2018 | Keywords: , ,

View full details | Go to resource


A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research (Papers: Delphine R Boulbes, et al | 2018)

Published/Released on April 11, 2018 | Posted by Admin on August 24, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract Purpose: The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could only be reproduced 11-45% of the time. Multiple surveys attempted to elucidate the fundamental causes... More

Abstract Purpose: The successful translation of laboratory research into effective therapies is dependent upon the validity of peer-reviewed publications. However, several publications in recent years suggested that published scientific findings could only be reproduced 11-45% of the time. Multiple surveys attempted to elucidate the fundamental causes of data irreproducibility and underscored potential solutions; more robust experimental designs, better statistics, and better mentorship. However, no prior survey has addressed the role of the review and publication process on honest reporting. Experimental Design: We developed an anonymous online survey intended for trainees involved in bench research. The survey included questions related to mentoring/career development, research practice, integrity and transparency, and how the pressure to publish, and the publication process itself influence their reporting practices. Results: Responses to questions related to mentoring and training practices were largely positive, although an average of ~25% didn't seem to receive optimal mentoring. 39.2% revealed having been pressured by a principle investigator or collaborator to produce "positive" data. 62.8% admitted that the pressure to publish influences the way they report data. The majority of respondents did not believe that extensive revisions significantly improved the manuscript while adding to the cost and time invested. Conclusions: This survey indicates that trainees believe that the pressure to publish impacts honest reporting, mostly emanating from our system of rewards and advancement. The publication process itself impacts faculty and trainees and appears to influence a shift in their ethics from honest reporting ("negative data") to selective reporting, data falsification, or even fabrication.

Boulbes, D. R., et al. (2018). "A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research." Clinical Cancer Research. http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2018/04/11/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2018)

Published/Released on March 09, 2018 | Posted by Admin on July 14, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this... More

Abstract [colored_box]Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this narrative is mistaken, and argues that a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling. . Keywords reproducible, researcher, isis, integrity, bias. misconduct .

Fanelli, D. (2018). "Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Publisher (Open Access): http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1708272114

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Should we try to manage non-financial interests? (Papers: Miriam Wiersma, et al)

Ideological biases influence medical research and practice and should be disclosed and managed, say Miriam Wiersma and colleagues. But Marc Rodwin argues that many of these interests are widespread and inherent to life and cannot be avoided or eliminated Yes—Miriam Wiersma, Ian... More

Ideological biases influence medical research and practice and should be disclosed and managed, say Miriam Wiersma and colleagues. But Marc Rodwin argues that many of these interests are widespread and inherent to life and cannot be avoided or eliminated Yes—Miriam Wiersma, Ian Kerridge, Wendy Lipworth [colored_box]Non-financial conflicts of interest in medical research and practice, which include those of a political, ideological, individual, or religious nature,1 2 are often overlooked, denied, and even defined out of existence.3 4 The focus is directed instead towards financial interests, such as those stemming from drug industry sponsorship of research, or payments to doctors. But dismissing non-financial conflicts of interest is naive, empirically unfounded, and dangerous. It is also unnecessary because non-financial conflicts can be managed with nuance and sensitivity. . Strong drivers Research shows, and common sense dictates, that people are driven at least as much by non-financial motives as they are by financial gain. These motives, which include the desire to protect ourselves or our family from harm, to reinforce our deeply held beliefs and values, to reciprocate gifts or favours, to attain status, and to avoid social disapproval, unquestionably exert a powerful influence on human behaviour.5 6 As argued by Cappola and Fitzgerald in relation to academia, “the prospect of fame may be even more seductive than fortune.”7 .

Wiersma, M., Kerridge, I,. Lipworth, W., Rodwin, M.. (2018). "Should we try to manage non-financial interests?" BMJ 361. Publisher: https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1240

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research (Papers: Guowei Li, et al | December 2017)

Published/Released on December 29, 2017 | Posted by Admin on April 28, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract

Background Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part... More

Abstract

Background Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports.

Methods We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively.

Results Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies.

Conclusions This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

Keywords AbstractScoping reviewInconsistent reportingDeficiencyAccuracyDiscrepancySpin

Li, G., Abbade, LPF., Nwosu, I., Jin, Y., Leenus, A., Maaz, M., Wang, M., Bhatt, M., Zielinski, L., Sanger, N., Bantoto, B., Luo, C., Shams, I., Shahid, H., Chang, Y., Sun, G., Mbuagbaw, L., Samaan, Z., Levine, MAH., Adachi, JD. & Thabane, L (2017) A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5 Publisher (Open Access): https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5#Bib1

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co‐Authors’ Careers (Papers: Philippe Mongeona and Vincent Larivièreb | January 2015)

Published/Released on February 28, 2015 | Posted by Admin on April 14, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Over the last few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for approximately more than half of those retractions. It is assumed... More

Abstract [colored_box]Over the last few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for approximately more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues’ misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors’ research careers. Using data from the Web of Science (WOS), we measured the productivity, impact and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of five years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues’ misconduct, and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, while the impact is less important for middle authors. . Keywords: Scientific misconduct, retractions, collaboration, bibliometrics .

Mongeon, P. and Larivière, V. (2016), Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co‐Authors' Careers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67: 535-542. doi:10.1002/asi.23421 Wiley One Library: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asi.23421

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The State of Peer Review in Criminology: Literary Theory, Perceptions, and the Catch-22 Metaphor of Peer Review (Papers: Ethan M. Higgins | December 2017)

Published/Released on December 29, 2017 | Posted by Admin on March 31, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract Considerable theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to the practice of peer review across various disciplines in the previous couple decades. Recently, Raymond Paternoster and Robert Brame indicated that it is necessary for criminology to follow suit and begin to provide a critical inquiry of the... More

Abstract Considerable theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to the practice of peer review across various disciplines in the previous couple decades. Recently, Raymond Paternoster and Robert Brame indicated that it is necessary for criminology to follow suit and begin to provide a critical inquiry of the blind review model. Literary theory and writing studies have examined literate practices for decades and empirical research has identified that literate practices, like peer review, are interactional and co-constructed across discourse communities. The unique character of peer review in criminology remains unknown however. Discussions with 40 of criminology’s most influential scholars provides an opportunity to begin constructing a broad context of criminology’s peer review by challenging universal knowledge through individual experiences.

Higgins, E. M. (2017). "The State of Peer Review in Criminology: Literary Theory, Perceptions, and the Catch-22 Metaphor of Peer Review." Journal of Criminal Justice Education: 1-24. Publisher: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511253.2017.1420809

Less

View full details | Go to resource


How to counter undeserving authorship (Papers: Stefan Eriksson, et al)

Published/Released on February 22, 2018 | Posted by Admin on March 28, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]The average number of authors listed on contributions to scientific journals has increased considerably over time. While this may be accounted for by the increased complexity of much research and a corresponding need for extended collaboration, several studies suggest that the prevalence of non-deserving authors on research... More

Abstract [colored_box]The average number of authors listed on contributions to scientific journals has increased considerably over time. While this may be accounted for by the increased complexity of much research and a corresponding need for extended collaboration, several studies suggest that the prevalence of non-deserving authors on research papers is alarming. In this paper a combined qualitative and quantitative approach is suggested to reduce the number of undeserving authors on academic papers: 1) ask scholars who apply for positions to explain the basics of a random selection of their co-authored papers, and 2) in bibliometric measurements, divide publications and citations by the number of authors. . Keywords: Ethics,  authorship,  scientific publishing,  honorary authors, bibliometrics .

Eriksson, S., Godskesen, T., Andersson, L., Helgesson, G. (2018). How to counter undeserving authorship. Insights. 31(1), p.1. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.395 Publisher (Open Access): https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.395/

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers (Papers: Tove Faber Frandsen | September 2017)

Published/Released on September 25, 2017 | Posted by Admin on March 24, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Warnings against publishing in predatory journals are plentiful and so are the suggested solutions to the problem. The existing studies all confirm that authors of articles published in potential predatory journals are typically young, inexperienced and from Asia or Africa. To what extend we can... More

Abstract [colored_box]Warnings against publishing in predatory journals are plentiful and so are the suggested solutions to the problem. The existing studies all confirm that authors of articles published in potential predatory journals are typically young, inexperienced and from Asia or Africa. To what extend we can consider the problem negligible is determined by the impact they are having on the scholarly communication in terms of publications and citations. The existing literature can provide more information about the former than the latter. This paper is an analysis of potential predatory journals as well as potential poor scientific standards journals. Citations to 124 potential predatory journals and poor scientific standards journals are looked up in Scopus and the citing authors analysed in regards to geographic location, publications and citations. The results show that the characteristics of the citing author indeed resemble those of the publishing author. Implications for recommendations and future research are discussed. . Keywords Predatory journals, Citing authors, Citation analysis .

Frandsen TF. (2017) Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers. Scientometrics.  pp1-16 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x Publisher: https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-017-2520-x

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review (Papers: Mark Hooper, et al)

Abstract

This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Journal Peer Review. The importance of providing research integrity training... More

Abstract

This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Journal Peer Review. The importance of providing research integrity training in these areas is now widely accepted; however, it remains an open question how best to conduct this training. For this reason, it is vital for institutions, journals, and peak bodies to share learnings.

We describe how we have collaborated across our institution to develop training that supports QUT’s principles and which is in line with insights from contemporary research on best practices in learning design, universal design, and faculty involvement. We also discuss how we have refined these courses iteratively over time, and consider potential mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of the courses more formally.

Hooper, M., Barbour V., Walsh A.., Bradbury, S. and Jacobs J. (2018) Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2018) 3:2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0046-2 Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0046-2?platform=hootsuitehttps://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0046-2?platform=hootsuite

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Ethics of Predatory Journals (Papers: Alexander McLeod | 2016)

Published/Released on December 30, 2016 | Posted by Admin on March 2, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Predatory journals operate as vanity presses, typically charging large submission or publication fees and requiring little peer review. The consequences of such journals are wide reaching, affecting the integrity of the legitimate journals they attempt to imitate, the reputations of the departments, colleges, and universities... More

Abstract Predatory journals operate as vanity presses, typically charging large submission or publication fees and requiring little peer review. The consequences of such journals are wide reaching, affecting the integrity of the legitimate journals they attempt to imitate, the reputations of the departments, colleges, and universities of their contributors, the actions of accreditation bodies, the reputations of their authors, and perhaps even the generosity of academic benefactors. Using a stakeholder analysis, our study of predatory journals suggests that most stakeholders gain little in the short run from such publishing and only the editors or owners of these journals benefit in the long run. We also discuss counter-measures that academic and administrative faculty can employ to thwart predatory publishing.

McLeod A, Savage A & Simkin MG (2016) The Ethics of Predatory Journals. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3419-9 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-016-3419-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact (Papers: Xin Shuai, et al | January 2016)

Abstract [colored_box]Over the past few decades, the rate of publication retractions has increased dramatically in academia. In this study, we investigate retractions from a quantitative perspective, aiming to answer two fundamental questions. One, how do retractions influence the scholarly impact... More

Abstract [colored_box]Over the past few decades, the rate of publication retractions has increased dramatically in academia. In this study, we investigate retractions from a quantitative perspective, aiming to answer two fundamental questions. One, how do retractions influence the scholarly impact of retracted papers, authors, and institutions? Two, does this influence propagate to the wider academic community through scholarly associations? Specifically, we analyzed a set of retracted articles indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS), and ran multiple experiments to compare changes in scholarly impact against a control set of non-retracted articles, authors, and institutions. We further applied the Granger Causality test to investigate whether different scientific topics are dynamically affected by retracted papers occurring within those topics. Our results show two key findings: first, the scholarly impact of retracted papers and authors significantly decreases after retraction, and the most severe impact decrease correlates to retractions based on proven purposeful scientific misconduct; second, this retraction penalty does not seem to spread through the broader scholarly social graph, but instead has a limited and localized effect. Our findings may provide useful insights for scholars or science committees to evaluate the scholarly value of papers, authors, or institutions related to retractions. .

Shuai, X., Rollins, J., Moulinier, I., Custis, T., Edmunds, M., & Schilder, F. (2017).  A Multidimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2225-2236. doi: 10.1002/asi.23826. Publisher (Open Access): https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.09123

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Understanding the complexities of retractions (Amy Riegelman and Caitlin Bakker | January 2018)

Recommended resources

Reasons for retracted publications range from honest errors made by authors or publishers to research misconduct (e.g., falsified data, fraudulent peer review). A retraction represents a status change of a publication in the scholarly literature. Other examples of status changes... More

Recommended resources

Reasons for retracted publications range from honest errors made by authors or publishers to research misconduct (e.g., falsified data, fraudulent peer review). A retraction represents a status change of a publication in the scholarly literature. Other examples of status changes include correction or erratum. A retraction could be initiated by many parties, including authors, institutions, or journal editors. The U.S. National Library of Medicine annually reports on the number of retracted publications indexed within PubMed. While the overall rate of retractions is still very small, retractions have increased considerably in the last decade from 97 retracted articles in 2006 to 664 in 2016.1

[colored_box]As librarians help users navigate research platforms and maintain awareness of publication status changes, it is important to understand both the publishing and discovery landscape. Guidelines exist to help publishers and platforms identify retractions, but a recent study found inconsistent representations of retractions across various platforms.2 Another consideration is when scholars export citations or full-text articles out of various discovery platforms to personal libraries (e.g., Mendeley, DropBox). . Philip Davis studied retracted articles residing in personal libraries and nonpublisher websites. Among the findings, Mendeley libraries contained many retracted articles, and Davis concluded that this decentralized access without automated status updates “may come with the cost of promoting incorrect, invalid, or untrustworthy science.”3 .
RIEGELMAN, Amy; BAKKER, Caitlin. Understanding the complexities of retractions: Recommended resources.College & Research Libraries News, [S.l.], v. 79, n. 1, p. 38. ISSN 2150-6698. Available at: <https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16865/18491>. doi:https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.79.1.38. Publisher (Open Access): https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16865/18491
Less

View full details | Go to resource


Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research (Papers: Eric A. Fong and Allen W. Wilhite | 2017)

Published/Released on December 06, 2017 | Posted by Admin on February 12, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists with superfluous... More

Abstract [colored_box]Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists with superfluous citations. How prevalent are these types of manipulation, why do scholars stoop to such practices, and who among us is most susceptible to such ethical lapses? This study builds a framework around how intense competition for limited journal space and research funding can encourage manipulation and then uses that framework to develop hypotheses about who manipulates and why they do so. We test those hypotheses using data from over 12,000 responses to a series of surveys sent to more than 110,000 scholars from eighteen different disciplines spread across science, engineering, social science, business, and health care. We find widespread misattribution in publications and in research proposals with significant variation by academic rank, discipline, sex, publication history, co-authors, etc. Even though the majority of scholars disapprove of such tactics, many feel pressured to make such additions while others suggest that it is just the way the game is played. The findings suggest that certain changes in the review process might help to stem this ethical decline, but progress could be slow. .

Fong EA, Wilhite AW (2017) Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE 12(12): e0187394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394 Publisher (Open Access): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187394

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


HARKing: How Badly Can Cherry-Picking and Question Trolling Produce Bias in Published Results? (Kevin R. Murphy & Herman Aguinis | 2017)

Published/Released on December 11, 2017 | Posted by Admin on January 15, 2018 | Keywords: , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]The practice of hypothesizing after results are known (HARKing) has been identified as a potential threat to the credibility of research results. We conducted simulations using input values based on comprehensive meta-analyses and reviews in applied psychology and management (e.g., strategic management studies) to determine the extent to which two forms of HARKing behaviors might plausibly bias study outcomes and to examine the determinants of the size of this effect. When HARKing involves cherry-picking, which consists of searching through data involving alternative measures or samples to find the results that offer the strongest possible support for a particular hypothesis or research question, HARKing has only a small effect on estimates of the population effect size. When HARKing involves question trolling, which consists of searching through data involving several different constructs, measures of those constructs, interventions, or relationships to find seemingly notable results worth writing about,... More

Abstract [colored_box]The practice of hypothesizing after results are known (HARKing) has been identified as a potential threat to the credibility of research results. We conducted simulations using input values based on comprehensive meta-analyses and reviews in applied psychology and management (e.g., strategic management studies) to determine the extent to which two forms of HARKing behaviors might plausibly bias study outcomes and to examine the determinants of the size of this effect. When HARKing involves cherry-picking, which consists of searching through data involving alternative measures or samples to find the results that offer the strongest possible support for a particular hypothesis or research question, HARKing has only a small effect on estimates of the population effect size. When HARKing involves question trolling, which consists of searching through data involving several different constructs, measures of those constructs, interventions, or relationships to find seemingly notable results worth writing about, HARKing produces substantial upward bias particularly when it is prevalent and there are many effects from which to choose. Results identify the precise circumstances under which different forms of HARKing behaviors are more or less likely to have a substantial impact on a study’s substantive conclusions and the field’s cumulative knowledge. We offer suggestions for authors, consumers of research, and reviewers and editors on how to understand, minimize, detect, and deter detrimental forms of HARKing in future research. . Keywords HARKing, Simulation Publication bias, Data snooping .

Murphy, K.R. & Aguinis, H. J Bus Psychol (2017). HARKing: How Badly Can Cherry-Picking and Question Trolling Produce Bias in Published Results? Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7 ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321734216_HARKing_How_Badly_Can_Cherry-Picking_and_Question_Trolling_Produce_Bias_in_Published_Results

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Fallibility in science: Responsible ways to handle mistakes (Papers: Dorothy Bishop | November 2017)

View full details | Go to resource


Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access (Papers: Kevin L. Smith | November 2017)

Published/Released on November 08, 2017 | Posted by Admin on January 3, 2018 | Keywords: , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]The word ‘predatory’ has become an obstacle to a serious discussion of publishing practices. Its use has been both overinclusive, encompassing practices that, while undesirable, are not malicious, and underinclusive, missing many exploitative practices outside the open access sphere. The article examines different business models... More

Abstract [colored_box]The word ‘predatory’ has become an obstacle to a serious discussion of publishing practices. Its use has been both overinclusive, encompassing practices that, while undesirable, are not malicious, and underinclusive, missing many exploitative practices outside the open access sphere. The article examines different business models for scholarly publishing and considers the potential for abuse with each model. After looking at the problems of both blacklists and so-called ‘whitelists’, the author suggests that the best path forward would be to create tools to capture the real experience of individual authors as they navigate the publishing process with different publishers. .

Smith, K.L., (2017). Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access. Insights. 30(3), pp.4–10. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.388 Publisher (Open Access): https://insights.uksg.org/article/10.1629/uksg.388/

Also see: In a world of hijacked, clone and zombie publishing, where shouldn’t I publish? Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory open access Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with... Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and... Open access, power, and privilege

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Open access, power, and privilege (Papers: Shea Swauger | 2017)

Published/Released on November 29, 2017 | Posted by Admin on January 1, 2018 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”

[colored_box]In June 2017, Jeffrey Beall published an opinion piece in Biochemia Medica titled “What I Learned from Predatory Publishers.”1 While there are several elements of this publication that I find inaccurate or problematic, I’m choosing... More

A response to “What I learned from predatory publishing”

[colored_box]In June 2017, Jeffrey Beall published an opinion piece in Biochemia Medica titled “What I Learned from Predatory Publishers.”1 While there are several elements of this publication that I find inaccurate or problematic, I’m choosing four specific themes within his piece to critique. In the interest of full disclosure, I am Jeffrey Beall’s direct supervisor at the University of Colorado-Denver’s Auraria Library and have been since I began working there in July 2015. . Dangerous nostalgia . At several points, Beall describes a history of scholarly publishing where authority and credibility were known and stable, and from... .

Swauger, S. (2017) Open access, power, and privilege. College & Research Libraries News. 78(11) Publisher (Open Access): http://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18434

Also see: In a world of hijacked, clone and zombie publishing, where shouldn’t I publish? Examining publishing practices: moving beyond the idea of predatory... Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with... Illegitimate Journals and How to Stop Them: An Interview with Kelly Cobey and... Open access, power, and privilege

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors? (Papers: Maciej J. Mrowinski, et al | September 2017)

Published/Released on September 20, 2017 | Posted by Admin on December 15, 2017 | Keywords: , , ,

Abstract With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors’ workloads, are treated as trade secrets by... More

Abstract With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors’ workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy). Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems.

Mrowinski MJ, Fronczak P, Fronczak A, Ausloos M, Nedic O (2017) Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors? PLoS ONE 12(9): e0184711. Publisher (open access); http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184711

[colored_box]   Less

View full details | Go to resource


Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles (Papers: Stéphane Boyer, et al | 2017)

Published/Released on November 03, 2017 | Posted by Admin on December 8, 2017 | Keywords: , , , ,

Abstract Background Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely relies on the position in the list of authors to... More

Abstract Background Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely relies on the position in the list of authors to evaluate contributions, a metric that attributes subjective and unfounded credit to co-authors. We propose an easy to apply, universally comparable and fair metric to measure and report co-authors contribution in the scientific literature. Methods The proposed Author Contribution Index (ACI) is based on contribution percentages provided by the authors, preferably at the time of submission. Researchers can use ACI to compare the contributions of different authors, describe the contribution profile of a particular researcher or analyse how contribution changes through time. We provide such an analysis based on contribution percentages provided by 97 scientists from the field of ecology who voluntarily responded to an online anonymous survey. Results ACI is simple to understand and to implement because it is based solely on percentage contributions and the number of co-authors. It provides a continuous score that reflects the contribution of one author as compared to the average contribution of all other authors. For example, ACI(i) = 3, means that author i contributed three times more than what the other authors contributed on average. Our analysis comprised 836 papers published in 2014-2016 and revealed patterns of ACI values that relate to career advancement. Conclusion There are many examples of author contribution indices that have been proposed but none has really been adopted by scientific journals. Many of the proposed solutions are either too complicated, not accurate enough or not comparable across articles, authors and disciplines. The author contribution index presented here addresses these three major issues and has the potential to contribute to more transparency in the science literature. If adopted by scientific journals, it could provide job seekers, recruiters and evaluating bodies with a tool to gather information that is essential to them and cannot be easily and accurately obtained otherwise. We also suggest that scientists use the index regardless of whether it is implemented by journals or not. Keywords Co-authorship, Author contribution, Publication metric, Scientific integrity

Boyer S, Takayoshi I, Lefort MC, Malumbres-Olarte J and Schmidt J (2017) Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2 (1) Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0042-y

Also see All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross-sectoral valuation of credit..

Less

View full details | Go to resource


All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross-sectoral valuation of credit in nutrition science (Papers: Bart Penders | 2017)

Published/Released on October 16, 2017 | Posted by Admin on December 8, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , ,

ABSTRACT [colored_box]The passionate pursuit of authorships is fuelled by the value they represent to scholars and scientists. This article asks how this value differs across scientists and how these different processes of valuation inform authorship articulation, strategies, and publication behavior in general. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of... More

ABSTRACT [colored_box]The passionate pursuit of authorships is fuelled by the value they represent to scholars and scientists. This article asks how this value differs across scientists and how these different processes of valuation inform authorship articulation, strategies, and publication behavior in general. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of authorship practices among nutrition scientists employed at universities, contract research organizations, and in food industry, I argue that two different modi operandi emerge when it comes to authorship. These different ways of working produce different collaborative approaches, different credit distribution strategies amongst collaborators, and different value placed upon (the pursuit of) authorship. These different valuation processes are neither explicit nor recognizable to those reading (and judging) author lists. As a consequence, in the politics of authorship, the names standing atop a scientific publication in nutrition science represent different types of value to both the individuals and employing organizations. . KEYWORDS: Authorship, value, credit, public-private collaboration, collaboration, nutrition science .

Penders B. (2017) All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross-sectoral valuation of credit in nutrition science. Accountability in Research 24(8): 433-450. Publisher (Open Access): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2017.1386565

Also see Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution...

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The full story of 90 hijacked journals from August 2011 to June 2015 (Papers: Jalalian Mehrdad & Dadkhah Mehdi | 2015)

Published/Released on September 15, 2017 | Posted by Admin on November 18, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

More

ABSTRACT [colored_box]During recent years, the academic world has suffered a lot from the threats of hijacked journals and fake publishers that have called into question the validity and reliability of scientific publications. The purpose of this paper is to tell the in-depth story of hijacked journals. This paper addresses the hijackers themselves, the methods they use to find their victims in the academic world, the methods they use to collect money from unsuspecting researchers by charging them to publish in hijacked journals, how they hide their identities, and how the academic world can best protect itself from these cyber- criminals. Without identifying specific journal hijackers, we tell the story of how an assistant professor of computer and information science from Saudi Arabia (who holds a Ph.D. from a Malaysian university) and his team of Word Press experts from Pakistan hijacked at least six journals including journal of technology, BRI's Journal of Advances in Science and Technology, Magnt Research Report, Scientific Khyber, Saussurea, and created one of the four fake websites for Texas Journal of Science. We also tell the story of how some conferences are integrated with hijacked journals, and how a cybercriminal with a fake address in United Arab Emirates used the pseudonym 'James Robinson' to mass hijack more than 20 academic journals (Journal of Balkan Tribological Association, Scientia Guaianae, Journal of American Medical Association, Cadmo, Entomon, Italianistica, Revue scientifique et technique, Kar- diologiya, Agrochimica, Terapevticheskii Arkhiv, Ama, Tekstil, Fauna Rossii I Sopredel Nykh Stran, Azariana, PSR health research bulletin, etc.). We also address the European cybercriminal with pseudonym 'Ruslan Boranbaev' who hijacked the Archives des Sciences in October 2011 and created the 'Science record journals' (to host three hijacked journals Including 'Science series data report', Innovaciencia, and 'Science and nature'; and seven fake journals) for the first time in the academic world in August 2011. We tell how Ruslan Boranbaev designed a systematic approach to mass hijack more than 25scientific journals, including Bothalia, Jokull, Cienia e tecnica, Wulfenia, Doriana, Revista Kasmera, Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg, Sylwan, HFSP journal, Natura, and Cahiers des Sciences Naturelles. We also tell the story how this genius cybercriminal, whom we could call the king of hijacked journals, created a fake 'web of sciences' portal in 2015 on a dedicated server in France to launch an automated spam broadcasting machine of calls for papers for his hijacked journals. We also present how the Ruslan Boranbaev created numerous online payment portals for collecting the publication charges of hijacked journals, and cheated the Thomson Reuters to provide hyperlinks to the fake website of three hijacked journals in his masterpiece 'revistas-academicas.com'. We also tell the story of how someone adopted the Ruslan Boranbaev approach to cheat the Thomson Reuters to create hyperlinks from master journal list of Thomson Reuters to two of his hijacked journals (GMP review: <http://www.euromed.uk.com/> Allgemeine Forst und Jagdzeitung: http://www.sauerlander-verlag.com). Finally, we present the most comprehensive list of hijacked journals available, including all of those that we have detected from Au- gust 11, 2011 to June 15, 2015. .

Jalalian M & Dadkhah M (2015) The full story of 90 hijacked journals from August 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica, 19(2), 73-87. Publisher (Open access): http://scindeks.ceon.rs/Article.aspx?artid=0354-87241502073J&lang=en

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison (Papers: Larissa Shamseer, et al | March 2017)

Published/Released on March 16, 2017 | Posted by Admin on November 10, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract Background The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and... More

Abstract Background The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals. Methods On July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified – potential predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated. Results Ninety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’ homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric – the Index Copernicus Value – versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63–$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800–$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500–$3000). Conclusions We identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’ publications as part of the hiring process. Keywords Predatory, Open access, Scientific publishing, Publishing models, Biomedical journal, Journalology

Larissa Shamseer, David Moher, Onyi Maduekwe, Lucy Turner, Virginia Barbour, Rebecca Burch, Jocalyn Clark, James Galipeau, Jason Roberts and Beverley J. Shea (2017) Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine 2017 15:28 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 Publisher (open access): https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers? (Papers: Martin Paul Eve and Ernesto Priego | 2017)

Abstract: ‘Predatory publishing’ refers to conditions under which gold open access academic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media... More

Abstract: ‘Predatory publishing’ refers to conditions under which gold open access academic publishers claim to conduct peer review and charge for their publishing services but do not, in fact, actually perform such reviews. Most prominently exposed in recent years by Jeffrey Beall, the phenomenon garners much media attention. In this article, we acknowledge that such practices are deceptive but then examine, across a variety of stakeholder groups, what the harm is from such actions to each group of actors. We find that established publishers have a strong motivation to hype claims of predation as damaging to the scholarly and scientific endeavour while noting that, in fact, systems of peer review are themselves already acknowledged as deeply flawed. Keywords: Open Access, Scholarly Communications, Predatory Publishing, Evaluative Cultures, Academia

Eve PM & Priego E (2017) Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers? Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society. 15(2) Publisher (Open access): http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/867/1042

[colored_box] Less

View full details


The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals (Papers: Johann Mouton & Astrid Valentine | 2017)

Published/Released on July 26, 2017 | Posted by Admin on September 30, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract: We present a first estimate of the extent of predatory publishing amongst South African academics. This estimate is based on an analysis of all South African authored papers that qualified for subsidy over the period 2005 to 2014. The analysis shows that 4246 South... More

Abstract: We present a first estimate of the extent of predatory publishing amongst South African academics. This estimate is based on an analysis of all South African authored papers that qualified for subsidy over the period 2005 to 2014. The analysis shows that 4246 South African papers were published in 48 journals which we re-classified (refining Beall’s classification) as either being probably or possibly predatory. A breakdown of these papers by year shows that the greatest increase in predatory publishing has occurred since 2011. Results are also presented of the distribution of these papers by individual university and scientific field. We conclude with some suggestions about predatory publishing and its pervasive consequence for our trust in science and how this should be addressed by the major stakeholders in the South African higher education system. Significance: This study is the first to analyse the extent of predatory publishing in South Africa. Keywords: predatory publishing; scholarly publishing; South Africa; open access journals; DHET funding framework

Mouton J, Valentine A. (2017) The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals. South African Journal of Science, 113(7/8), Art. #2017-0010. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2017/20170010 Publisher (open access): http://www.sajs.co.za/extent-south-african-authored-articles-predatory-journals/johann-mouton-astrid-valentine

Also see South Africa has spent millions... Also see ‘Dodgy’ articles in academic journals threatens... 

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Anglo – American Management Model of Conflict of Interest in Scientific Activities and Its Enlightenment (Papers: Wei Yi Dong | 2017)

Abstract : Conflict of interest is a hot and important issue in the world. In the scientific activities, the conflict of interest is also very prominent, has affected the truth of science and objectivity, but also the reputation of the community of scientists had a... More

Abstract : Conflict of interest is a hot and important issue in the world. In the scientific activities, the conflict of interest is also very prominent, has affected the truth of science and objectivity, but also the reputation of the community of scientists had a negative impact. This is the inevitable result of the infiltration of interest into science. In response to this problem, the United States, Britain and other developed countries to develop relevant policies, the establishment of the corresponding management model, has accumulated a more mature experience, it is worth learning and learn from other countries. Key words : conflict of interest, research management, American model, British model

70-85 (in Chinese with English abstract) [J]. Science and Society, 2017, 7 (2): 70-85. WEI Yi-dong. (2017) Management Models and their Inspirations on Conflicts of Interest in Science. Science and Society. 7(2): 70-85. DOI: 10.19524 / j.cnki.10-1009 / g3.2017.02 .070 . Publisher (open access): http://www.xml-data.org/KXYSH/html/60ce743b-2708-4563-a633-73965d297102.htm

[colored_box] Less

View full details | Go to resource


What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review (Papers: Anisa Rowhani-Farid, et al | May 2017)

Published/Released on May 05, 2017 | Posted by Admin on August 28, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract Background The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing. More

Abstract Background The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing. Methods A systematic review (registration: doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6PZ5E) of the health and medical research literature was used to uncover any evidence-based incentives, with pre- and post-empirical data that examined data sharing rates. We were also interested in quantifying and classifying the number of opinion pieces on the importance of incentives, the number observational studies that analysed data sharing rates and practices, and strategies aimed at increasing data sharing rates. Results Only one incentive (using open data badges) has been tested in health and medical research that examined data sharing rates. The number of opinion pieces (n = 85) out-weighed the number of article-testing strategies (n = 76), and the number of observational studies exceeded them both (n = 106). Conclusions Given that data is the foundation of evidence-based health and medical research, it is paradoxical that there is only one evidence-based incentive to promote data sharing. More well-designed studies are needed in order to increase the currently low rates of data sharing. Keywords Incentives, Data sharing, Open data, Meta-research

Rowhani-Farid A, Allen M, & Barnett AG (2017) What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2(4) DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9 Publisher (Open Access): https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186...

[colored_box] Less

View full details | Go to resource


Afraid of Scooping; Case Study on Researcher Strategies against Fear of Scooping in the Context of Open Science (Papers: Heidi Laine | 2017)

Published/Released on June 15, 2017 | Posted by Admin on August 22, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

[colored_box]The risk of scooping is often used as a counter argument for open science, especially open data. In this case study I have examined openness strategies, practices and attitudes in two open collaboration research projects created by Finnish researchers, in order to understand what made them resistant to the... More

[colored_box]The risk of scooping is often used as a counter argument for open science, especially open data. In this case study I have examined openness strategies, practices and attitudes in two open collaboration research projects created by Finnish researchers, in order to understand what made them resistant to the fear of scooping. The radically open approach of the projects includes open by default funding proposals, co-authorship and community membership. Primary sources used are interviews of the projects’ founding members. The analysis indicates that openness requires trust in close peers, but not necessarily in research community or society at large. Based on the case study evidence, focusing on intrinsic goals, like new knowledge and bringing about ethical reform, instead of external goals such as publications, supports openness. Understanding fundaments of science, philosophy of science and research ethics, can also have a beneficial effect on willingness to share. Whether there are aspects in open sharing that makes it seem riskier from the point of view of certain demographical groups within research community, such as women, could be worth closer inspection. .

Laine  H  (2017) Afraid of Scooping : Case Study on Researcher Strategies against Fear of Scooping in the Context of Open Science. Data Science Journal. 16(29) DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2017-029 Publisher (open access): https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/195064

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing (Papers: Mehdi Dadkhah & Glenn Borchardt | 2016)

Published/Released on January 23, 2016 | Posted by Admin on August 11, 2017 | Keywords: , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Online-Based Approaches to Identify Real Journals and Publishers from Hijacked Ones (Papers: Amin Asadi, et al | 2017)

Published/Released on January 02, 2016 | Posted by Admin on August 9, 2017 | Keywords: , , ,

Abstract The aim of the present paper was to introduce some online-based approaches to evaluate scientific journals and publishers and to differentiate them from the hijacked ones, regardless of their disciplines. With the advent of open-access journals, many hijacked journals and publishers have deceitfully assumed the... More

Abstract The aim of the present paper was to introduce some online-based approaches to evaluate scientific journals and publishers and to differentiate them from the hijacked ones, regardless of their disciplines. With the advent of open-access journals, many hijacked journals and publishers have deceitfully assumed the mantle of authenticity in order to take advantage of researchers and students. Although these hijacked journals and publishers can be identified through checking their advertisement techniques and their websites, these ways do not always result in their identification. There exist certain online-based approaches, such as using Master Journal List provided by Thomson Reuters, and Scopus database, and using the DOI of a paper, to certify the realness of a journal or publisher. It is indispensable that inexperienced students and researchers know these methods so as to identify hijacked journals and publishers with a higher level of probability. Keywords Hijacked journals, Fake publishers, Open-access, Scientific journals

Asadi A, Rahbar N, Asadi M, Asadi F and Kokab Paji KK. (2017) Online-Based Approaches to Identify Real Journals and Publishers from Hijacked Ones. Science and Engineering Ethics. 23(1): 305-308 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-015-9747-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists (Papers: Franca Agnoli | March 2017)

Abstract [colored_box]A survey in the United States revealed that an alarmingly large percentage of university psychologists admitted having used questionable research practices that can contaminate the research literature with false positive and biased findings. We conducted a replication of this study among Italian research psychologists to... More

Abstract [colored_box]A survey in the United States revealed that an alarmingly large percentage of university psychologists admitted having used questionable research practices that can contaminate the research literature with false positive and biased findings. We conducted a replication of this study among Italian research psychologists to investigate whether these findings generalize to other countries. All the original materials were translated into Italian, and members of the Italian Association of Psychology were invited to participate via an online survey. The percentages of Italian psychologists who admitted to having used ten questionable research practices were similar to the results obtained in the United States although there were small but significant differences in self-admission rates for some QRPs. Nearly all researchers (88%) admitted using at least one of the practices, and researchers generally considered a practice possibly defensible if they admitted using it, but Italian researchers were much less likely than US researchers to consider a practice defensible. Participants’ estimates of the percentage of researchers who have used these practices were greater than the self-admission rates, and participants estimated that researchers would be unlikely to admit it. In written responses, participants argued that some of these practices are not questionable and they have used some practices because reviewers and journals demand it. The similarity of results obtained in the United States, this study, and a related study conducted in Germany suggest that adoption of these practices is an international phenomenon and is likely due to systemic features of the international research and publication processes. .

Agnoli F, Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CLS, Albiero P, Cubelli R (2017) Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0172792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792 Publisher (open access - including the data): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172792

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring (Papers: Michael W. Kalichman & Dena K. Plemmons | 2017)

Published/Released on June 12, 2017 | Posted by Admin on July 19, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Although much of the focus on responsible conduct in research has been defined by courses or online training, it is generally understood that this is less important than what happens in the research environment. On the assumption that providing faculty with tools and resources to... More

Abstract [colored_box]Although much of the focus on responsible conduct in research has been defined by courses or online training, it is generally understood that this is less important than what happens in the research environment. On the assumption that providing faculty with tools and resources to address the ethical dimensions of the practice of research would be useful, a new workshop was convened ten times across seven academic institutions and at the annual meeting of a professional society. Workshops were attended by 91 faculty, 71 (78% response rate) of whom completed evaluations strongly supportive of the value of the workshop. Surveys of trainees identified by the faculty allowed for invitations to complete an online survey before and 6 months after the workshops, respectively resulting in response rates of 43 and 51%. Faculty and trainees were highly supportive of the feasibility, relevance, and effectiveness of the implementation by the faculty of one or more of the five strategies featured in the workshop. However, surprisingly over 70% of the trainees reported use of one or more of those strategies prior to faculty participation in the workshops. In sum, the workshops for faculty were successful, and the proposed strategies were deemed of value, but it is likely that the faculty voluntarily choosing to participate in these workshops were perhaps not surprisingly faculty who are already engaging in some of these strategies. This model is likely a useful adjunct to encouraging a culture of ethics, but it is not by itself sufficient to do so. . Keywords Research ethics, Responsible conduct of research, Mentoring .

Kalichman, M. W. and D. K. Plemmons (2017). Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring. Science and Engineering Ethics. In print. DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9929-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-017-9929-8

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Indexing by Bibliographic Databases of Journals Published in the Developing World (Papers: Aamir Raoof Memon and Ahmed Waqas | 2017)

View full details | Go to resource


Promoting Responsible Conduct of Research: A Canadian Perspective (Papers: Susan Zimmerman & Karen Wallace | 2013)

View full details | Go to resource


Detecting Hijacked Journals by Using Classification Algorithms (Papers: Mona Andoohgin Shahri, et al | 2017)

Published/Released on April 10, 2017 | Posted by Admin on June 26, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Invalid journals are recent challenges in the academic world and many researchers are unacquainted with the phenomenon. The number of victims appears to be accelerating. Researchers might be suspicious of predatory journals because they have unfamiliar names, but hijacked journals are imitations of well-known, reputable... More

Abstract [colored_box]Invalid journals are recent challenges in the academic world and many researchers are unacquainted with the phenomenon. The number of victims appears to be accelerating. Researchers might be suspicious of predatory journals because they have unfamiliar names, but hijacked journals are imitations of well-known, reputable journals whose websites have been hijacked. Hijacked journals issue calls for papers via generally laudatory emails that delude researchers into paying exorbitant page charges for publication in a nonexistent journal. This paper presents a method for detecting hijacked journals by using a classification algorithm. The number of published articles exposing hijacked journals is limited and most of them use simple techniques that are limited to specific journals. Hence we needed to amass Internet addresses and pertinent data for analyzing this type of attack. We inspected the websites of 104 scientific journals by using a classification algorithm that used criteria common to reputable journals. We then prepared a decision tree that we used to test five journals we knew were authentic and five we knew were hijacked. . Keywords Hijacked journals, Internet fraud, Academic ethics, Editorial process, Spam emails .

Andoohgin Shahri M, Jazi MD, Borchardt G. et al (2017)  Detecting Hijacked Journals by Using Classification Algorithms. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9914-2 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-017-9914-2

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A Proposal for Considering Research Integrity from the Perspective of Behavioral Economics (Papers: Melissa S. Anderson and Jamal A. Adam | 2014)

Over the past 30 years, cases of scientific misconduct have tended to follow what is by now a familiar pattern: misconduct is intentionally committed, the clandestine misdeeds are revealed, institutions and funders react, investigations ensue, punishments are imposed, and the long process of correcting the research... More

Over the past 30 years, cases of scientific misconduct have tended to follow what is by now a familiar pattern: misconduct is intentionally committed, the clandestine misdeeds are revealed, institutions and funders react, investigations ensue, punishments are imposed, and the long process of correcting the research record continues on. Major cases of misconduct usually prompt institutions to review and tighten their research oversight and policies and to improve their approaches to instruction in the responsible conduct of research. When a case becomes a matter of national embarrassment, these reactions can be systemically widespread. There is, of course, variation in this general pattern, particularly in the extent of successful correction of the scientific record (16).

The trajectory of action associated with a misconduct case thus typically begins with an individual, but ownership of the problem rises through the academic research hierarchy to the officials of research institutions, funding agencies and regulatory bodies, among others. The consequences then come back down the hierarchy, often with implications that extend to several academic or administrative departments or even to entire institutions. In the U.S., three primary systemic responses to misconduct have emerged in recent decades: the development and elaboration of policies, regulations, codes of conduct and so on; instruction in the responsible conduct of research; and oversight and other mechanisms for ensuring compliance.

These approaches, though obviously valuable, are designed for general impact across disciplines and research settings. What is needed are strategies to protect research integrity in the specific contexts where the work of research is performed. This shift involves more careful consideration of the following four points...

Anderson, M. S., & Adam, J. A. (2014). A Proposal for Considering Research Integrity from the Perspective of Behavioral Economics. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education15(2), 173–176. http://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.868 Publisher (Open Access0: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278472/

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Complex and Multifaceted Aspects of Conflicts of Interest (Papers: William W. Stead, MD | May 2017)

Judgment and integrity are 2 hallmarks of professionalism. Conflict of interest (COI), bias, and dishonesty represent a spectrum of threats to judgment and integrity. [colored_box]COI, a conflict between a professional responsibility and a personal interest, is at one end of this threat spectrum. COI creates a risk of bias. Bias,... More

Judgment and integrity are 2 hallmarks of professionalism. Conflict of interest (COI), bias, and dishonesty represent a spectrum of threats to judgment and integrity. [colored_box]COI, a conflict between a professional responsibility and a personal interest, is at one end of this threat spectrum. COI creates a risk of bias. Bias, a prejudice for or against something, is in the middle of this spectrum. If a COI results in bias, the bias may affect a professional judgment. Dishonesty is deceit or fraud. Dishonesty is at the opposite end of this spectrum from COI. Each of these threats exists on a continuum. COI may be present or perceived. Bias may be conscious or unconscious. Dishonesty may be intentional or unintentional. . Every professional has COIs. The conflicts may be internal (eg, personal interest in reputation or career advancement) or external (eg, a financial interest in a for-profit business). Few professionals are intentionally dishonest. Recognition that each physician has COIs and that COIs and dishonesty are at different ends of the spectrum is the first step in a thoughtful conversation about how to protect professional judgment and integrity. .

Stead WW. The Complex and Multifaceted Aspects of Conflicts of Interest. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1765-1767. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3435 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2623588

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Where Are the Missing Coauthors? Authorship Practices in Participatory Research (Papers: Daniel Sarna-Wojcicki, et al | 2017)

Abstract Originally marginal, participatory research has become an increasingly important methodology in the social, biophysical, and interdisciplinary sciences. The overall increase in publications based on participatory research has raised questions about crediting the contributions of nonacademic collaborators. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we analyzed trends and patterns in... More

Abstract Originally marginal, participatory research has become an increasingly important methodology in the social, biophysical, and interdisciplinary sciences. The overall increase in publications based on participatory research has raised questions about crediting the contributions of nonacademic collaborators. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we analyzed trends and patterns in authorship and acknowledgment practices in a sample of 262 journal articles reporting on participatory research on rural livelihoods published from 1975 to 2013. Six percent of the researchers recognized the intellectual contributions of their nonacademic collaborators with coauthorship and 51 percent with acknowledgment. Through interviews with lead authors of coauthored articles, we analyzed factors that shaped whether authorship was shared with nonacademic collaborators. Despite facing numerous barriers, researchers were motivated to coauthor in order to recognize intellectual contributions, practice research ethics, and work toward epistemic decolonization. We argue that coauthorship can be an important component of epistemic justice in participatory research and encourage participatory researchers to discuss authorship with their nonacademic collaborators as a routine component of engaged scholarship. We also note that nonacademics’ contributions to scientific knowledge need to be taken into account in understandings of the practice of science.

Sarna-Wojcicki D, Perret M, Eitzel MV, Fortmann L (2017) Where Are the Missing Coauthors? Authorship Practices in Participatory Research. Rural Sociology. Publisher: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ruso.12156/full

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys (Papers: Vanja Pupovac & Daniele Fanelli | 2015)

Abstract We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included... More

Abstract We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 17 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N = 7) and witnessed (N = 11) plagiarism yielded a pooled estimate of, respectively, 1.7 % (95 % CI 1.2–2.4) and 30 % (95 % CI 17–46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather than indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: (1) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; (2) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; (3) The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time. Keywords Plagiarism, Research misconduct, Research integrity, Data fabrication, Data falsification, Survey methodology

Pupovac V & Fanelli D (2015) Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics. 21(5) pp 1331-1352. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6

Less

View full details | Go to resource


We need more research on causes and consequences, as well as on solutions (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2015)

ARE BIAS AND MISCONDUCT GROWING? There is no direct evidence that the reproducibility of published findings has actually declined, or that bias and misconduct have increased in frequency. The recent rise in retractions, typically invoked as evidence of an epidemic of fraud, is instead accounted for... More

ARE BIAS AND MISCONDUCT GROWING? There is no direct evidence that the reproducibility of published findings has actually declined, or that bias and misconduct have increased in frequency. The recent rise in retractions, typically invoked as evidence of an epidemic of fraud, is instead accounted for entirely by the increasing number of journals who implement policies to retract papers, and therefore should be interpreted as a positive sign [1]. The most reliable evidence of a growing problem comes from two independent studies [2, 3] that measured the prevalence of reported ‘positive’ or statistically significant results in electronic databases, using different proxies. Both these studies show that positive-outcome bias, at least in scientific abstracts, has grown in most disciplines and countries. It is still unclear, however, if and to what extent this growth in literature biases reflects a growth in actual significance chasing, selection or manipulation of data. The rate at which scientists admit to having committed various forms of misconduct, for example, has declined, not increased, over the years [4]...

Keywords Bias, meta-science, misconduct, peer-review, reporting, retraction

Fanelli D (2015) We need more research on causes and consequences, as well as on solutions. Addiction 110(1) pp11-13 Publisher: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12772/full

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century (Papers: Daniele Fanelli and Vincent Larivière | 2016)

Published/Released on March 09, 2016 | Posted by Admin on May 27, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Debates over the pros and cons of a “publish or perish” philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward “quantity” at the expense of “quality,” because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply... More

Abstract [colored_box]Debates over the pros and cons of a “publish or perish” philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward “quantity” at the expense of “quality,” because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning (“salami slicing”), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results. To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science. The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century. Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing. Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated. .

Fanelli D, Larivière V (2016) Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0149504. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149504 Publisher (Open Access): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149504

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Meta-assessment of bias in science (Papers: Daniele Fanelli, et al | 2017)

Published/Released on February 14, 2017 | Posted by Admin on May 26, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract [colored_box]Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large... More

Abstract [colored_box]Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large random sample of meta-analyses taken from all disciplines. The magnitude of these biases varied widely across fields and was overall relatively small. However, we consistently observed a significant risk of small, early, and highly cited studies to overestimate effects and of studies not published in peer-reviewed journals to underestimate them. We also found at least partial confirmation of previous evidence suggesting that US studies and early studies might report more extreme effects, although these effects were smaller and more heterogeneously distributed across meta-analyses and disciplines. Authors publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias. However, effect sizes were likely to be overestimated by early-career researchers, those working in small or long-distance collaborations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to situational factors, lack of mutual control, and individual integrity. Some of these patterns and risk factors might have modestly increased in intensity over time, particularly in the social sciences. Our findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis. . Keywords bias, misconduct, meta-analysis, integrity, meta-research .

Fanelli D, Costas R, Ioannidis JPA (2017) Meta-assessment of bias in science. PNAS 114(14) pp3714–3719 - 10.1073/pnas.1618569114 Publisher (open access): http://www.pnas.org/content/114/14/3714.abstract

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity (Papers: Daniele Fanelli, et al | 2015)

Abstract The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either... More

Abstract The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher’s career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V (2015) Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127556 Publisher (open access): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127556

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices (Papers: John P. A. Ioannidis, et al | 2015)

Abstract As the scientific enterprise has grown in size and diversity, we need empirical evidence on the research process to test and apply interventions that make it more efficient and its results more reliable. Meta-research is an evolving scientific discipline that aims to evaluate and improve... More

Abstract As the scientific enterprise has grown in size and diversity, we need empirical evidence on the research process to test and apply interventions that make it more efficient and its results more reliable. Meta-research is an evolving scientific discipline that aims to evaluate and improve research practices. It includes thematic areas of methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives (how to do, report, verify, correct, and reward science). Much work is already done in this growing field, but efforts to-date are fragmented. We provide a map of ongoing efforts and discuss plans for connecting the multiple meta-research efforts across science worldwide.

Ioannidis JPA, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN (2015) Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices. PLoS Biol 13(10): e1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 Publisher (open access): http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error (Papers: Mohammad Hosseini, et al | 2017)

Abstract Retractions solicited by authors following the discovery of an unintentional error—what we henceforth call a “self-retraction”—are a new phenomenon of growing importance, about which very little is known. Here we present results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations... More

Abstract Retractions solicited by authors following the discovery of an unintentional error—what we henceforth call a “self-retraction”—are a new phenomenon of growing importance, about which very little is known. Here we present results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations and beliefs that accompanied the experience of a self-retraction. We identified retraction notes that unambiguously reported an honest error and that had been published between the years 2010 and 2015. We limited our sample to retractions with at least one co-author based in the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany or a Scandinavian country, and we invited these authors to a semi-structured interview. Fourteen authors accepted our invitation. Contrary to our initial assumptions, most of our interviewees had not originally intended to retract their paper. They had contacted the journal to request a correction and the decision to retract had been made by journal editors. All interviewees reported that having to retract their own publication made them concerned for their scientific reputation and career, often causing considerable stress and anxiety. Interviewees also encountered difficulties in communicating with the journal and recalled other procedural issues that had unnecessarily slowed down the process of self-retraction. Intriguingly, however, all interviewees reported how, contrary to their own expectations, the self-retraction had brought no damage to their reputation and in some cases had actually improved it. We also examined the ethical motivations that interviewees ascribed, retrospectively, to their actions and found that such motivations included a combination of moral and prudential (i.e. pragmatic) considerations. These preliminary results suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self-retraction. Keywords Integrity, Error. Misconduct, Retractions, Corrections, Moral reasoning

Hosseini M, Hilhorst M, de Beaufort I, Fanelli D (2017) Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error. Science and Engineering Ethics - 10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2

Less

View full details | Go to resource


A mathematical theory of knowledge, science, bias and pseudoscience (Papers: Daniele Fanelli ​| 2016)

Published/Released on April 28, 2016 | Posted by Admin on May 20, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution (Papers: Charles W. Fox, et al | 2017)

Published/Released on March 08, 2017 | Posted by Admin on May 19, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Abstract Background It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is... More

Abstract Background It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is largely anecdotal. Main body [colored_box]We examine responses of individuals to review invitations for six journals in ecology and evolution. The proportion of invitations that lead to a submitted review has been decreasing steadily over 13 years (2003–2015) for four of the six journals examined, with a cumulative effect that has been quite substantial (average decline from 56% of review invitations generating a review in 2003 to just 37% in 2015). The likelihood that an invitee agrees to review declines significantly with the number of invitations they receive in a year. However, the average number of invitations being sent to prospective reviewers and the proportion of individuals being invited more than once per year has not changed much over these 13 years, despite substantial increases in the total number of review invitations being sent by these journals—the reviewer base has expanded concomitant with this growth in review requests . Conclusions The proportion of review invitations that lead to a review being submitted has been declining steadily for four of the six journals examined here, but reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline. . Keywords Peer review, Reviewers, Reviewer fatigue, Scholarly journals .

Fox CW, Albert AYK and Vines TH (2017) Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2(3) DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x Publisher (open access): http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Promoting Responsible Research Conduct: A South African Perspective (Papers: Lyn Horn | 2017)

Abstract A great deal of effort has gone into developing capacity in the sphere of human research protection programmes in South Africa and Africa over the last decade or more, by several international organisations. However the promotion of the broader agenda of research integrity or ‘RCR’... More

Abstract A great deal of effort has gone into developing capacity in the sphere of human research protection programmes in South Africa and Africa over the last decade or more, by several international organisations. However the promotion of the broader agenda of research integrity or ‘RCR’ (Responsible Conduct of Research) has lagged behind. From a global perspective South Africa and other African countries are actively involved in research endeavours and collaborations across a very broad spectrum of scientific fields. For this research to fulfil its potential social value it must be reliable and trustworthy and hence it is essential that research institutions and universities take the promotion of research integrity seriously. The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of an institutional office of research integrity within the context of academic research particularly in South Africa but also in Africa. I will reflect on my own experience over a period of five years as a research integrity officer at a South African academic institution to highlight concerns in five domains; the promotion of an ethic of responsibility in opposition to compliance and bureaucracy, collaboration ethics and collegiality especially in the context of North-South collaborations, authorship and publication ethics, the problem of plagiarism and the utility of policy and procedure. I will suggest that the establishment of such an office can be of great value in the promotion of a broad culture of research ethics and responsible research conduct. The possible role and scope of function of an institutional office of research integrity will be briefly outlined. Keywords Research integrity, Research ethics, Institutional review board, Plagiarism, Compliance

Horn, LJ (2017) Promoting Responsible Research Conduct: A South African Perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics 15(1) 59-72. doi:10.1007/s10805-016-9272-8 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-016-9272-8/fulltext.html?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals

Less

View full details | Go to resource


What does research reproducibility mean? (Papers: Steven N. Goodman, et al | 2016)

Published/Released on June 01, 2016 | Posted by Admin on May 13, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract The language and conceptual framework of “research reproducibility” are nonstandard and unsettled across the sciences. In this Perspective, we review an array of explicit and implicit definitions of reproducibility and related terminology, and discuss how to avoid potential misunderstandings when these terms are used as... More

Abstract The language and conceptual framework of “research reproducibility” are nonstandard and unsettled across the sciences. In this Perspective, we review an array of explicit and implicit definitions of reproducibility and related terminology, and discuss how to avoid potential misunderstandings when these terms are used as a surrogate for “truth.”

Goodman S, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA (2016) What does reproducibility mean? Science Translational Medicine - 8(341), pp. 341ps12 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 Publisher: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/8/341/341ps12

Less

View full details | Go to resource


How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2009)

Published/Released on May 29, 2009 | Posted by Admin on April 24, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult... More

Abstract The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. Publisher (open access): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2010)

Published/Released on April 21, 2010 | Posted by Admin on April 24, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative”... More

Abstract The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state's per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.

Citation: Fanelli D (2010) Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 Publisher (open access): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010271

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Reply to de Winter and Dodou (2014): Growing bias and the hierarchy are actually supported, despite different design, errors, and disconfirmation-biases (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2014)

Published/Released on July 28, 2014 | Posted by Admin on April 23, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I appreciate the efforts that de Winter and Dodou (2014) have put into replicating and challenging claims made by Fanelli (2010, 2012), as well as those of Pautasso (2010). This is how all sciences should make progress, and it is therefore both a duty and an honour to respond... More

I appreciate the efforts that de Winter and Dodou (2014) have put into replicating and challenging claims made by Fanelli (2010, 2012), as well as those of Pautasso (2010). This is how all sciences should make progress, and it is therefore both a duty and an honour to respond to this challenge. The results presented are largely in agreement with claims by Fanelli (2012 and 2010), but this fact is obfuscated by a somewhat selective interpretation of findings, reinforced by differences in study design, and major flaws in the sampling and analytical design. FLAWS IN INTERPRETATION: 1) Fanelli (2012) claimed that negative results are disappearing in percentage, which is exactly what is found here. Even de Winter and Dodou (2014) quote Fanelli (2012) as using percentage figures, so I am quite baffled as to why they consider their results at odds with mine. For the record, the absolute number of negative results in Fanelli (2012) did not show a decline, and it was never claimed in the paper that it did...

Fanelli D (2014) Reply to de Winter and Dodou (2014): Growing bias and the hierarchy are actually supported, despite different design, errors, and disconfirmation-biases. Peer J - commentary. (non peer-reviewed) This is the original pre-print the comment replies to. Access this preprint

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Conservative Tests under Satisficing Models of Publication Bias (Papers: Justin McCrary, et al 2016)

Published/Released on February 22, 2016 | Posted by Admin on April 22, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract Publication bias leads consumers of research to observe a selected sample of statistical estimates calculated by producers of research. We calculate critical values for statistical significance that could help to adjust after the fact for the distortions created by this selection effect, assuming that the only source... More

Abstract Publication bias leads consumers of research to observe a selected sample of statistical estimates calculated by producers of research. We calculate critical values for statistical significance that could help to adjust after the fact for the distortions created by this selection effect, assuming that the only source of publication bias is file drawer bias. These adjusted critical values are easy to calculate and differ from unadjusted critical values by approximately 50%—rather than rejecting a null hypothesis when the t-ratio exceeds 2, the analysis suggests rejecting a null hypothesis when the t-ratio exceeds 3. Samples of published social science research indicate that on average, across research fields, approximately 30% of published t-statistics fall between the standard and adjusted cutoffs.

McCrary J, Christensen G, Fanelli D (2016) Conservative Tests under Satisficing Models of Publication Bias. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0149590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149590 Publisher: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149590

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (Papers: Marc A. Edwards and Siddhartha Roy | 2017)

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... More

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.

Edwards Marc A. and Roy Siddhartha. Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science. January 2017, 34(1): 51-61. doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223. Publisher: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Neutralising fair credit: factors that influence unethical authorship practices (Brad S Trinkle et al 2017)

[colored_box]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... More

[colored_box]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. .

Trinkle BS, Phillips T, Hall A, Moffatt B (2017) Neutralising fair credit: factors that influence unethical authorship practices. Journal of Medical Ethics Published Online First: 31 January 2017. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103365 Publisher (open access): http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2017/01/31/medethics-2015-103365

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Increased Publication in Predatory Journals by Developing Countries’ Institutions: What it Entails? And What Can be Done? (Papers: Mulubrhan Balehegn | 2017)

ABSTRACT Recently, there has been an alarming increase in the number of “academic” papers published in vanity journals and publishers. Such journals, dubbed predatory because their main objective is making money out of authors, compromise or completely abandon the peer review system. An increase in publishing... More

ABSTRACT Recently, there has been an alarming increase in the number of “academic” papers published in vanity journals and publishers. Such journals, dubbed predatory because their main objective is making money out of authors, compromise or completely abandon the peer review system. An increase in publishing with such journals, which is common in developing counties, will affect the quality of science, excellence, development, and individual researchers' and institutions' professional reputation. In this article, the author discusses strategies for individual researchers and institutions for identifying and discouraging publishing in predatory journals. Moreover, suggestions on how to deal with faculty who have published and already bestowed positions on the grounds of papers published in predatory journals are also given. Strategies and suggestions discussed in this article can provide insights to librarians and publication officers on how to curb the problem of predatory publications. KEYWORDS: Academic promotion, predatory journals, publication fraud, zombie professors

Balehegn, M. (2017) Increased Publication in Predatory Journals by Developing Countries' Institutions: What it Entails? And What Can be Done? International Information & Library Review.: 1-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2016.1278188 Publisher: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10572317.2016.1278188

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign (Papers: Daniele Fanelli | 2013)

Summary Points

  • Corrections to scientific papers have been published for much longer than retractions, and show little sign of a recent increase.
  • The number of journals issuing retractions has grown dramatically in recent years, but the number of retractions per retracting-journal has not increased.
  • The... More

    Summary Points

    • Corrections to scientific papers have been published for much longer than retractions, and show little sign of a recent increase.
    • The number of journals issuing retractions has grown dramatically in recent years, but the number of retractions per retracting-journal has not increased.
    • The number of queries and allegations made to the US Office of Research Integrity has grown, but the frequency of its findings of misconduct has not increased.
    • Therefore, the rising number of retractions is most likely to be caused by a growing propensity to retract flawed and fraudulent papers, and there is little evidence of an increase in the prevalence of misconduct.
    • Statistics on retractions and findings of misconduct are best used to make inferences about weaknesses in the system of scientific self-correction.
    Research Integrity Series This is one article in an occasional PLOS Medicine series on research integrity that examines issues affecting the ethics of health research worldwide.

    Fanelli D (2013) Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign. PLoS Med 10(12): e1001563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 Publisher (open access): http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563

    Also see Publishing: Rise in retractions is a signal of integrity (Nature Correspondence | May 2014)

    [colored_box]

    Less

    View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Why Research Oversight Bodies Should Interview Research Subjects (Papers: Carl Elliott | 2017)

[colored_box]Abstract Research oversight bodies conducting for-cause investigations often fail to interview research subjects who have complaints of mistreatment. I argue that this failure is a mistake for three reasons. First, because written medical records are often inaccurate, there may be no entries in a study subject’s... More

[colored_box]Abstract Research oversight bodies conducting for-cause investigations often fail to interview research subjects who have complaints of mistreatment. I argue that this failure is a mistake for three reasons. First, because written medical records are often inaccurate, there may be no entries in a study subject’s record about research-related medical harms. Second, research staff members write the reports that make up the research study records. If there are allegations that a research subject experienced research harms, subjects will rightly feel it is unfair that the for-cause investigation relies only on records written and kept by the research team. Third, the outcome of a for-cause investigation may be influenced by the ethical distance that results from failure to learn directly from research subjects about their complaints of mistreatment. . Keywords: Research subjects, human experimentation, human research subject protections, research ethics, research oversight, for-cause investigations .

Elliott C (2017) Why Research Oversight Bodies Should Interview Research Subjects. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. March-April 2017 39(2) Publisher: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/irb_article/research-oversight-bodies-interview-research-subjects/

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The forensic implications of predatory publishing (Paper: Roger Byard | 2016)

Published/Released on April 02, 2016 | Posted by Admin on April 5, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

“There are books of which the backs and the cove... More

“There are books of which the backs and the covers are by far the best parts” Charles Dickens (1812–1870) [colored_box]An email that I received recently requested my participation in a conference on “coastal zones” because of my academic standing in the field. It began: “Dear Byard, Greetings for the day! Lets Exploit yourself to the world. Because we believe that ‘You are the one that can inspires the common, to change the recitation of emerging world’” [sic]. The reality is, however, somewhat different—I have never written or presented a paper on “coastal zones”. In fact the only recent experience that I have had of coastal zones is taking my dog for a walk at the beach near Adelaide on weekends. This is hardly an activity to qualify for international pre-eminence, although Lucy (the dog) does seem to enjoy it. The sad fact is that nowadays we all receive persistent marketing emails such as this that are often written in idiosyncratic, hyperbolic, and incorrect English that invite us to be on editorial boards, to write papers, monographs and text books, and to travel to the far reaches of the planet to present at conferences on subjects ranging from oceanographic research to attention deficit disorder. Most, if not all, are in no way related to the specific areas of research or expertise of the recipient. The reason for this is that it is inconsequential to the publishers/organizers, as long as they can have enough participants/contributors who are who willing to pay the often substantial fees that are charged for involvement in such activities. Frankly some of these requests are not too dissimilar to emails that sometimes arrive congratulating the recipient on winning several billion dollars—all that is required are full banking details, including passwords. .

Byard, R.W.(2016) The forensic implications of predatory publishing. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 12(04): 391. doi:10.1007/s12024-016-9771-3 Publisher (open access): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12024-016-9771-3

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics (Papers: Stefan Eriksson & Gert Helgesson | 2016)

Abstract This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path.... More

Abstract This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects of this development. The paper concludes that predatory publishing is a growing phenomenon that has the potential to greatly affect both bioethics and science at large. Publishing papers and books for profit, without any genuine concern for content, but with the pretence of applying authentic academic procedures of critical scrutiny, brings about a worrying erosion of trust in scientific publishing. Keywords Predatory publishing, Publication ethics, Peer review, Bioethics

Eriksson S & Helgesson G. (2016) The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 Publisher (Open access): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11019-016-9740-3

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication (Papers: Ana Marusic, et al | 2016)

Abstract Background: Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on... More

Abstract Background: Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on the behaviour and attitudes of researchers in health and other research areas. Search methods: [colored_box]We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS and CINAHL health research bibliographical databases, as well as the Academic Search Complete, AGRICOLA, GeoRef, PsycINFO, ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. We performed the last search on 15 April 2015 and the search was limited to articles published between 1990 and 2014, inclusive. We also searched conference proceedings and abstracts from research integrity conferences and specialized websites. We handsearched 14 journals that regularly publish research integrity research. . Selection criteria: We included studies that measured the effects of one or more interventions, i.e. any direct or indirect procedure that may have an impact on research integrity and responsible conduct of research in its broadest sense, where participants were any stakeholders in research and publication processes, from students to policy makers. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, such as controlled before-and-after studies, with comparisons of outcomes in the intervention versus non-intervention group or before versus after the intervention. Studies without a control group were not included in the review. . Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess the risk of bias in non-randomized studies, we used a modified Cochrane tool, in which we used four out of six original domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, other sources of bias) and two additional domains (comparability of groups and confounding factors). We categorized our primary outcome into the following levels: 1) organizational change attributable to intervention, 2) behavioural change, 3) acquisition of knowledge/skills and 4) modification of attitudes/perceptions. The secondary outcome was participants' reaction to the intervention. . Main results: Thirty-one studies involving 9571 participants, described in 33 articles, met the inclusion criteria. All were published in English. Fifteen studies were randomized controlled trials, nine were controlled before-and-after studies, four were non-equivalent controlled studies with a historical control, one was a non-equivalent controlled study with a post-test only and two were non-equivalent controlled studies with pre- and post-test findings for the intervention group and post-test for the control group. Twenty-one studies assessed the effects of interventions related to plagiarism and 10 studies assessed interventions in research integrity/ethics. Participants included undergraduates, postgraduates and academics from a range of research disciplines and countries, and the studies assessed different types of outcomes.We judged most of the included randomized controlled trials to have a high risk of bias in at least one of the assessed domains, and in the case of non-randomized trials there were no attempts to alleviate the potential biases inherent in the non-randomized designs.We identified a range of interventions aimed at reducing research misconduct. Most interventions involved some kind of training, but methods and content varied greatly and included face-to-face and online lectures, interactive online modules, discussion groups, homework and practical exercises. Most studies did not use standardized or validated outcome measures and it was impossible to synthesize findings from studies with such diverse interventions, outcomes and participants. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that various methods of training in research integrity had some effects on participants' attitudes to ethical issues but minimal (or short-lived) effects on their knowledge. Training about plagiarism and paraphrasing had varying effects on participants' attitudes towards plagiarism and their confidence in avoiding it, but training that included practical exercises appeared to be more effective. Training on plagiarism had inconsistent effects on participants' knowledge about and ability to recognize plagiarism. Active training, particularly if it involved practical exercises or use of text-matching software, generally decreased the occurrence of plagiarism although results were not consistent. The design of a journal's author contribution form affected the truthfulness of information supplied about individuals' contributions and the proportion of listed contributors who met authorship criteria. We identified no studies testing interventions for outcomes at the organizational level. The numbers of events and the magnitude of intervention effects were generally small, so the evidence is likely to be imprecise. No adverse effects were reported. . Authors' conclusions: The evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous, inappropriate for meta-analyses and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain. Many studies had a high risk of bias because of the choice of study design and interventions were often inadequately reported. Even when randomized designs were used, findings were difficult to generalize. Due to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain. Low quality evidence indicates that training about plagiarism, especially if it involves practical exercises and use of text-matching software, may reduce the occurrence of plagiarism. .

Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, Rothstein HR and Sambunjak D (2016) Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000038. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2. Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299642408... [accessed Jan 29, 2017] Publisher: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/14651858.MR000038/asset/MR000038.pdf... .

Also see: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/12/do-interventions-to-reduce-misconduct-actually-work-maybe-not-says-new-report/

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2, resource #3


Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles (Papers: Hamid R. Jamali | February 2017

Published/Released on February 16, 2017 | Posted by Admin on March 27, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract ResearchGate is increasingly used by scholars to upload the full-text of their articles and make them freely available for everyone. This study aims to investigate the extent to which ResearchGate members as authors of journal articles comply with publishers’ copyright policies when they self-archive full-text... More

Abstract ResearchGate is increasingly used by scholars to upload the full-text of their articles and make them freely available for everyone. This study aims to investigate the extent to which ResearchGate members as authors of journal articles comply with publishers’ copyright policies when they self-archive full-text of their articles on ResearchGate. A random sample of 500 English journal articles available as full-text on ResearchGate were investigated. 108 articles (21.6%) were open access (OA) published in OA journals or hybrid journals. Of the remaining 392 articles, 61 (15.6%) were preprint, 24 (6.1%) were post-print and 307 (78.3%) were published (publisher) PDF. The key finding was that 201 (51.3%) out of 392 non-OA articles infringed the copyright and were non-compliant with publishers’ policy. While 88.3% of journals allowed some form of self-archiving (SHERPA/RoMEO green, blue or yellow journals), the majority of non-compliant cases (97.5%) occurred when authors self-archived publishers’ PDF files (final published version). This indicates that authors infringe copyright most of the time not because they are not allowed to self-archive, but because they use the wrong version, which might imply their lack of understanding of copyright policies and/or complexity and diversity of policies. Keywords ResearchGate, Copyright compliance, Copyright infringement, Depositing, Researchers, Journal articles, Open access, Self-archiving

Jamali, H.R. (2017) Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Reactively, Proactively, Implicitly, Explicitly? Academics’ Pedagogical Conceptions of how to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity (Papers: Heidi Hyytinen & Erika Löfström | 2017)

Abstract This article focuses on academics’ conceptions of teaching research ethics and integrity. Seventeen academics from a Finnish research intensive university participated in this qualitative study. The data were collected using a qualitative multi-method approach, including think-aloud and interview data. The material was scrutinized using thematic... More

Abstract This article focuses on academics’ conceptions of teaching research ethics and integrity. Seventeen academics from a Finnish research intensive university participated in this qualitative study. The data were collected using a qualitative multi-method approach, including think-aloud and interview data. The material was scrutinized using thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches. The results revealed variation in academics’ views on the responsibility for teaching research integrity, the methods employed to teach it and the necessity of intervening when misconduct occurs. The academics emphasized the responsibility of the individual teacher and the student to foster integrity as well as the shared responsibility of all members of the academic community. However, many academics felt that they themselves needed pedagogical training. Most shared the view that practices of responsible conduct in research can be explicitly and intentionally taught through demonstration, explanation, and practice. However, the academics also noted that learning research integrity and ethics takes place implicitly. A few questioned the need for and the utility of training in the form of courses or through an explicitly addressed topic included in, for instance, methods courses. Their views on the question of how to deal with alleged cases of misconduct varied. While many academics considered a proactive approach the best way to prevent misconduct, some trusted more in a reactive approach. The results show that, while in general academics agree on the importance of research ethics, their conceptions of teaching it vary. The teaching conception bears consequences for the teaching methods chosen, assignment of responsibility for both teaching and students learning, and for the way in which teachers believe that misconduct should be responded to. Keywords Research ethics, Research integrity, Ethics training, Preventing misconduct, Teaching conceptions

Hyytinen, H. & Löfström, E. (2017) Reactively, Proactively, Implicitly, Explicitly? Academics’ Pedagogical Conceptions of how to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics  15(1) 23-41. doi:10.1007/s10805-016-9271-9 Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-016-9271-9?no-access=true

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Safeguarding research integrity in China (Papers: Jane Qiu | 2015)

China has an impressive record in the total number of scientific publications in the past decade. In 2012, it churned out 193 733 Science Index Citation papers—4.7 times the 2002 level and second only to the United States. Unfortunately, the standards of science integrity has not kept up with the... More

China has an impressive record in the total number of scientific publications in the past decade. In 2012, it churned out 193 733 Science Index Citation papers—4.7 times the 2002 level and second only to the United States. Unfortunately, the standards of science integrity has not kept up with the pace of this development, and many cases of research misconduct have been reported. This prompts many to fear that the country is now facing a critical problem in the field of scientific ethics. In a forum chaired by National Science Review’s executive associate editor Mu-ming Poo, five panellists from diverse backgrounds discuss how serious the problem is, what the root causes are, and how to safeguard research integrity in China.

Jane Qiu (2015) Safeguarding research integrity in China. National Science Review (March 2015) 2 (1): 122-125. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwv002 Publisher (open access): https://nsr.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/122.full.pdf+html

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science (Papers: Mehdi Dadkhah, et al | 2017)

Published/Released on January 10, 2017 | Posted by Admin on March 8, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Abstract 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... More

Abstract 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. Keywords Junk science, Identity theft, Fake peer review, Academic misconduct

Dadkhah M, Lagzian M & Borchardt G(2017) Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9867-x Publisher: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-016-9867-x

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Creating a Community of Data Champions (Papers: Rosie Higman, et al | 2017)

Published/Released on February 20, 2017 | Posted by Admin on March 6, 2017 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

[colored_box]Research Data Management (RDM) presents an unusual challenge for service providers in Higher Education. There is increased awareness of the need for training in this area but the nature of discipline-specific practices involved make it difficult to provide training across a multi-disciplinary organisation. Whilst most UK universities now have... More

[colored_box]Research Data Management (RDM) presents an unusual challenge for service providers in Higher Education. There is increased awareness of the need for training in this area but the nature of discipline-specific practices involved make it difficult to provide training across a multi-disciplinary organisation. Whilst most UK universities now have a research data team of some description, they are often small and rarely have the resources necessary to provide targeted training to the different disciplines and research career stages that they are increasingly expected to support. This practice paper describes the approach taken at the University of Cambridge to address this problem by creating a community of Data Champions. This collaborative initiative, working with researchers to provide training and advocacy for good RDM practice, allows for more discipline-specific training to be given, researchers to be credited for their expertise and an opportunity for those interested in RDM to exchange knowledge with others. The community of practice model has been used in many sectors, including Higher Education, to facilitate collaboration across organisational units and this initiative will adopt some of the same principles to improve communication across a decentralised institution. The Data Champions initiative at Cambridge was launched in September 2016 and this paper reports on the early months, plans for building the community in the future and the possible risks associated with this approach to providing RDM services. .

Rosie Higman, Marta Teperek and Danny Kingsley (2017) Creating a Community of Data Champions. Posted February 20, 2017. bioRxiv 104661; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/104661 PrePrint: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/02/20/104661

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective (Sara R Jordan and Phillip W Gray | 2013)

Abstract In their 2010 article 'Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects', Zeng and Resnik challenge others to engage in empirical research on research integrity in China. Here we respond to that call in three ways: first, we provide updates to their analysis of regulations and... More

Abstract In their 2010 article 'Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects', Zeng and Resnik challenge others to engage in empirical research on research integrity in China. Here we respond to that call in three ways: first, we provide updates to their analysis of regulations and allegations of scientific misconduct; second, we report on two surveys conducted in Hong Kong that provide empirical backing to describe ways in which problems and prospects that Zeng and Resnik identify are being explored; and third, we continue the discussion started by Zeng and Resnik, pointing to ways in which China's high-profile participation in international academic research presents concerns about research integrity. According to our research, based upon searches of both English and Chinese language literature and policies, and two surveys conducted in Hong Kong, academic faculty and research post-graduate students in Hong Kong are aware of and have a positive attitude towards responsible conduct of research. Although Hong Kong is but one small part of China, we present this research as a response to concerns Zeng and Resnik introduce and as a call for a continued conversation. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. KEYWORDS: China; Education; Ethics; Hong Kong; Research Integrity; Research Misconduct; Responsible Conduct of Research

Jordan SR and Gray PW, (2013) Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective. Developing World Bioethics. 13, 3 Publisher: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22994886

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects (Papers: David Resnik and Weiqin Zeng | 2010

Abstract In little more than 30 years, China has recovered from the intellectual stagnation brought about by the Cultural Revolution to become a global leader in science and technology. Like other leading countries in science and technology, China has encountered some ethical problems related to the... More

Abstract In little more than 30 years, China has recovered from the intellectual stagnation brought about by the Cultural Revolution to become a global leader in science and technology. Like other leading countries in science and technology, China has encountered some ethical problems related to the conduct of research. China’s leaders have taken some steps to respond to these problems, such as developing ethics policies and establishing oversight committees. To keep moving forward, China needs to continue to take effective action to promote research integrity. Some of the challenges China faces include additional policy development, promoting education in responsible conduct of research, protecting whistle-blowers, and cultivating an ethical research environment. Keywords: Research integrity, China, ethics, misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, policies, education

Resnik  D and Zeng W (2010) Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects. Developing World Bioethics. Dec; 10(3): 164–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00263.x Publisher (open access): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891906/

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Guanxi networks and the gatekeeping practices of communication journals in China (Papers: Hongtao Li & Chin-Chuan Lee | 2014)

Abstract In China, scholarly journals are affiliated with the particular governing organizations that house them. This process of what can be characterized as danweization has given the editors of these journals almost unchallenged power, prompting the contributors to seek their favor through guanxi networks. Drawing on... More

Abstract In China, scholarly journals are affiliated with the particular governing organizations that house them. This process of what can be characterized as danweization has given the editors of these journals almost unchallenged power, prompting the contributors to seek their favor through guanxi networks. Drawing on fieldwork and in-depth interviews with key journal editors in media studies, this paper aims to explore the configuration of guanxi networks, the dynamics of guanxi practice in the gatekeeping process, and the implications of this practice for communication scholarship. We found that guanxi functions as a multi-layered particularism to facilitate the flow of information, to advance the priority of given papers, and to increase the rate at which such papers are published. In consequence, these journals publish a disproportionate number of articles by colleagues from the same sponsoring danwei. The operation of guanxi networks is so entrenched that it raises questions about the integrity of knowledge production and academic autonomy in China. Keywords: Chinese media journals, danweization, guanxi networks, multi-layered particularism, academic gatekeeping, academic autonomy

Hongtao Li & Chin-Chuan Lee (2014) Guanxi networks and the gatekeeping practices of communication journals in China. Chinese Journal of Communication. DOI: 10.1080/ 17544750.2014.965185 Publisher: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17544750.2014.965185

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals (Papers: Siluo Yang, et al 2017)

Published/Released on January 12, 2017 | Posted by Admin on February 11, 2017 | Keywords: , , ,

Abstract The author byline is an indispensable component of a scientific paper. Some journals have added contribution lists for each paper to provide detailed information of each author’s role. Many papers have explored, respectively, the byline and contribution lists. However, the relationship between the two remains... More

Abstract The author byline is an indispensable component of a scientific paper. Some journals have added contribution lists for each paper to provide detailed information of each author’s role. Many papers have explored, respectively, the byline and contribution lists. However, the relationship between the two remains unclear. We select three prominent general medical journals: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), and PLOS Medicine (PLOS). We analyze the relationship between the author byline and contribution lists using four indexes. Four main findings emerged. First, the number, forms, and names of contribution lists significantly differed among the three journals, although they adopted the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Second, a U-shaped relationship exists between the extent of contribution and author order: the participation levels in contribution lists were highest for first authors, followed by last and second authors, and then middle authors with the lowest levels. Third, regarding the consistency between author order in the contribution list and byline, every contribution category has a high consistency in JAMA and Annals, while PLOS shows a low consistency, in general. Fourth, the three journals have a similar distribution for the first authors in the contribution category; the first author in the byline contributes the highest proportion, followed by the middle and second authors, and then the last author with the lowest proportion. We also develop recommendations to modify academic and writing practice: implement structured cross-contribution lists, unify formats and standards of contribution lists, draft the author contribution criteria in the social sciences and humanities, and consider author contribution lists in scientific evaluation. Keywords Authorship, Byline order, Author contribution list, Contribution representation

Yang S, Wolfram D & Wang F (2017) The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2239-0 Publisher: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-2239-0

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics (Papers: Stefan Eriksson & Gert Helgesson | 2016)

Abstract This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path.... More

Abstract This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon ‘predatory publishing’, in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects of this development. The paper concludes that predatory publishing is a growing phenomenon that has the potential to greatly affect both bioethics and science at large. Publishing papers and books for profit, without any genuine concern for content, but with the pretence of applying authentic academic procedures of critical scrutiny, brings about a worrying erosion of trust in scientific publishing. Keywords Predatory publishing, Publication ethics, Peer review, Bioethics

Eriksson S & Helgesson G (2016) The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3 Publisher (open access): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11019-016-9740-3

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central (Papers: Elizabeth Moylan and Maria Kowalczuk | 2016)

Abstract [colored_box]Objectives To assess why articles are retracted from BioMed Central journals, whether retraction notices adhered to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and are becoming more frequent as a proportion of published articles. . Design/setting Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 134 retractions from January 2000 to December... More

Abstract [colored_box]Objectives To assess why articles are retracted from BioMed Central journals, whether retraction notices adhered to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and are becoming more frequent as a proportion of published articles. . Design/setting Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 134 retractions from January 2000 to December 2015. . Results 134 retraction notices were published during this timeframe. Although they account for 0.07% of all articles published (190 514 excluding supplements, corrections, retractions and commissioned content), the rate of retraction is rising. COPE guidelines on retraction were adhered to in that an explicit reason for each retraction was given. However, some notices did not document who retracted the article (eight articles, 6%) and others were unclear whether the underlying cause was honest error or misconduct (15 articles, 11%). The largest proportion of notices was issued by the authors (47 articles, 35%). The majority of retractions were due to some form of misconduct (102 articles, 76%), that is, compromised peer review (44 articles, 33%), plagiarism (22 articles, 16%) and data falsification/fabrication (10 articles, 7%). Honest error accounted for 17 retractions (13%) of which 10 articles (7%) were published in error. The median number of days from publication to retraction was 337.5 days. . Conclusions The most common reason to retract was compromised peer review. However, the majority of these cases date to March 2015 and appear to be the result of a systematic attempt to manipulate peer review across several publishers. Retractions due to plagiarism account for the second largest category and may be reduced by screening manuscripts before publication although this is not guaranteed. Retractions due to problems with the data may be reduced by appropriate data sharing and deposition before publication. Adopting a checklist (linked to COPE guidelines) and templates for various classes of retraction notices would increase transparency of retraction notices in future. .

Moylan EC and Kowalczuk MK (2016) Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open 6(11) doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047 Publisher (Open Access): http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/11/e012047.full

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity (Papers: Lex M. Bouter, at al | 2016)

Abstract Background Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more important due to their much higher prevalence. Little is known about what the most frequent... More

Abstract Background Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more important due to their much higher prevalence. Little is known about what the most frequent research misbehaviors are and what their impact is if they occur. Methods A survey was conducted among 1353 attendees of international research integrity conferences. They were asked to score 60 research misbehaviors according to their views on and perceptions of the frequency of occurrence, preventability, impact on truth (validity), and impact on trust between scientists on 5-point scales. We expressed the aggregate level impact as the product of frequency scores and truth, trust and preventability scores, respectively. We ranked misbehaviors based on mean scores. Additionally, relevant demographic and professional background information was collected from participants. Results Response was 17% of those who were sent the invitational email and 33% of those who opened it. The rankings suggest that selective reporting, selective citing, and flaws in quality assurance and mentoring are viewed as the major problems of modern research. The “deadly sins” of fabrication and falsification ranked highest on the impact on truth but low to moderate on aggregate level impact on truth, due to their low estimated frequency. Plagiarism is thought to be common but to have little impact on truth although it ranked high on aggregate level impact on trust. Conclusions We designed a comprehensive list of 60 major and minor research misbehaviors. Our respondents were much more concerned over sloppy science than about scientific fraud (FFP). In the fostering of responsible conduct of research, we recommend to develop interventions that actively discourage the high ranking misbehaviors from our study. Keywords Research integrity, Responsible conduct of research, Questionable research practices, Sloppy science, Research misconduct Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism

Bouter LME, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, Martinson BC and Riet G (2016) Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1:17 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5 Publisher (Open Access): http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Conceptualizing Fraudulent Studies as Viruses: New Models for Handling Retractions (Papers: Kathleen Montgomery & Amalya L. Oliver | 2016)

Abstract This paper addresses the growing problem of retractions in the scientific literature of publications that contain bad data (i.e., fabricated, falsified, or containing error), also called “false science.” While the problem is particularly acute in the biomedical literature because of the life-threatening implications when treatment... More

Abstract This paper addresses the growing problem of retractions in the scientific literature of publications that contain bad data (i.e., fabricated, falsified, or containing error), also called “false science.” While the problem is particularly acute in the biomedical literature because of the life-threatening implications when treatment recommendations and decisions are based on false science, it is relevant for any knowledge domain, including the social sciences, law, and education. Yet current practices for handling retractions are seen as inadequate. We use the metaphor of a virus to illustrate how such studies can spread and contaminate the knowledge system, when they continue to be treated as valid. We suggest drawing from public health models designed to prevent the spread of biological viruses and compare the strengths and weaknesses of the current governance model of professional self-regulation with a proposed public health governance model. The paper concludes by considering the value of adding a triple-helix model that brings industry into the university-state governance mechanisms and incorporates bibliometric capabilities needed for a holistic treatment of the retraction process. Keywords Knowledge management, Governance, False science, Bad data, Infection, Contact reporting, Retraction, Triple helix

Montgomery K & Oliver AL (2016) Conceptualizing Fraudulent Studies as Viruses: New Models for Handling Retractions. Minerva. doi:10.1007/s11024-016-9311-z Publisher: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-016-9311-z

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals (Papers: Arianne Y. K. Albert, et al | 2016)

Published/Released on November 04, 2016 | Posted by Admin on January 4, 2017 | Keywords: , , , ,

Abstract Background There is concern in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for peer-reviewed manuscripts, but much of this concern stems from anecdotal and rhetorical evidence. Methods We examined the proportion of review requests that led to a completed review over a... More

Abstract Background There is concern in the academic publishing community that it is becoming more difficult to secure reviews for peer-reviewed manuscripts, but much of this concern stems from anecdotal and rhetorical evidence. Methods We examined the proportion of review requests that led to a completed review over a 6-year period (2009–2015) in a mid-tier biology journal (Molecular Ecology). We also re-analyzed previously published data from four other mid-tier ecology journals (Functional Ecology, Journal of Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, and Journal of Applied Ecology), looking at the same proportion over the period 2003 to 2010. Results The data from Molecular Ecology showed no significant decrease through time in the proportion of requests that led to a review (proportion in 2009 = 0.47 (95 % CI = 0.43 to 0.52), proportion in 2015 = 0.44 (95 % CI = 0.40 to 0.48)). This proportion did decrease for three of the other ecology journals (changes in proportions from 2003 to 2010 = −0.10, −0.18, and −0.09), while the proportion for the fourth (Functional Ecology) stayed roughly constant (change in proportion = −0.04). Conclusions Overall, our data suggest that reviewer agreement rates have probably declined slightly but not to the extent suggested by the anecdotal and rhetorical evidence. Keywords Peer review Reviewers Academic journals

Albert A, Gow J, Cobra A, Vines T. (2016) Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(14) DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0022-7 Publisher (Open access): http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0022-7#Abs1 also available as a pdf

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application (Papers: Liisa Räsänen and Erja Moore | 2016)

Abstract We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). In this article, we introduce and evaluate the national... More

Abstract We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). In this article, we introduce and evaluate the national RCR guidelines. We also present statistics of alleged and proven RCR violation cases and frequency of appeals to TENK on the decisions or procedures of the primary institutions. In addition, we analyze the available data on seven investigated cases in more detail. Positive aspects in the Finnish system are a fairly good infrastructure to investigate suspected RCR violations and a wide concept of RCR violations, which consists of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misappropriation, and other misbehaviors. However, the guidelines contain poorly elaborated definitions, do not treat the complainant and the suspect in an equal way, and need to be revised. Confusion about the concepts and criteria of the RCR violations seems to be common in primary institutions and among the complainants. Even if research institutions and universities have officially adhered to the national RCR guidelines, slipping from the guidelines occurs quite commonly. All these factors lead to frequent dissatisfaction with the decisions or procedures applied, high rate of appeals to TENK, and far from optimal functionality of the system. Keywords Research misconduct Guidelines on research integrity Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity TENK

Räsänen L and Moore E (2016) Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1(15) DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0020-9 Publisher (open access): http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0020-9#Abs1 also available as a pdf

Less

View full details | Go to resource


We read spam a lot: prospective cohort study of unsolicited and unwanted academic invitations (Papers: Andrew Grey, et al | September 2016)

Published/Released on September 29, 2016 | Posted by Admin on December 23, 2016 | Keywords: , , ,

Abstract Objectives To assess the amount, relevance, content, and suppressibility of academic electronic spam invitations to attend conferences or submit manuscripts. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Email accounts of participating academics. Participants Five intrepid academics and a great many publishers, editors, and conference organisers. Intervention Unsubscribing from sender’s distribution lists. Main... More

Abstract Objectives To assess the amount, relevance, content, and suppressibility of academic electronic spam invitations to attend conferences or submit manuscripts. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Email accounts of participating academics. Participants Five intrepid academics and a great many publishers, editors, and conference organisers. Intervention Unsubscribing from sender’s distribution lists. Main outcome measures Number of spam invitations received before, immediately after, and one year after unsubscribing from senders’ distribution lists. The proportion of duplicate invitations was also assessed and the relevance of each invitation graded to the recipient’s research interests. A qualitative assessment of the content of spam invitations was conducted. Results At baseline, recipients received an average of 312 spam invitations each month. Unsubscribing reduced the frequency of the invitations by 39% after one month but by only 19% after one year. Overall, 16% of spam invitations were duplicates and 83% had little or no relevance to the recipients’ research interests. Spam invitations were characterised by inventive language, flattery, and exuberance, and they were sometimes baffling and amusing. Conclusions Academic spam is common, repetitive, often irrelevant, and difficult to avoid or prevent.

Grey A, Bolland MJ, Dalbeth N, Gamble G, Sadler L. (2016) We read spam a lot: prospective cohort study of unsolicited and unwanted academic invitations BMJ 2016; 355 Publisher (Open access): http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5383

 Also read this lighthearted discussion piece about academic spam

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles (Papers: Ernest Hugh O’Boyle Jr., et al 2014)

Published/Released on March 19, 2014 | Posted by Admin on December 21, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is most often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that entail post hoc alterations of hypotheses to support data or post... More

Abstract The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is most often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that entail post hoc alterations of hypotheses to support data or post hoc alterations of data to support hypotheses. Using general strain theory as an explanatory framework, we outline the means, motives, and opportunities for researchers to better their chances of publication independent of rigor and relevance. We then assess the frequency of QRPs in management research by tracking differences between dissertations and their resulting journal publications. Our primary finding is that from dissertation to journal article, the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubled (0.82 to 1.00 versus 1.94 to 1.00). The rise in predictive accuracy resulted from the dropping of statistically nonsignificant hypotheses, the addition of statistically significant hypotheses, the reversing of predicted direction of hypotheses, and alterations to data. We conclude with recommendations to help mitigate the problem of an unrepresentative literature that we label the “Chrysalis Effect.” Keywords: philosophy of science statistical methods ethics morality and moral behavior

O’Boyle EH, Banks GC, Gonzalez-Mulé E (2016) The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles. Journal of Management.  Doi: 10.1177/0149206314527133 Publisher: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/08/25/0149206314527133 Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260281783_The_Chrysalis_Effect_How...

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Industry sponsorship and research outcome (Papers: Andreas Lundh, et al 2012)

Published/Released on December 12, 2012 | Posted by Admin on December 10, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication (Papers: Ana Marusic, et al | 2016)

Abstract Background Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. Objectives Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on the behaviour... More

Abstract Background Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. Objectives Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on the behaviour and attitudes of researchers in health and other research areas. Search methods We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS and CINAHL health research bibliographical databases, as well as the Academic Search Complete, AGRICOLA, GeoRef, PsycINFO, ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. We performed the last search on 15 April 2015 and the search was limited to articles published between 1990 and 2014, inclusive. We also searched conference proceedings and abstracts from research integrity conferences and specialized websites. We handsearched 14 journals that regularly publish research integrity research. Selection criteria We included studies that measured the effects of one or more interventions, i.e. any direct or indirect procedure that may have an impact on research integrity and responsible conduct of research in its broadest sense, where participants were any stakeholders in research and publication processes, from students to policy makers. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, such as controlled before-and-after studies, with comparisons of outcomes in the intervention versus non-intervention group or before versus after the intervention. Studies without a control group were not included in the review. Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess the risk of bias in non-randomized studies, we used a modified Cochrane tool, in which we used four out of six original domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, other sources of bias) and two additional domains (comparability of groups and confounding factors). We categorized our primary outcome into the following levels: 1) organizational change attributable to intervention, 2) behavioural change, 3) acquisition of knowledge/skills and 4) modification of attitudes/perceptions. The secondary outcome was participants' reaction to the intervention. Main results Thirty-one studies involving 9571 participants, described in 33 articles, met the inclusion criteria. All were published in English. Fifteen studies were randomized controlled trials, nine were controlled before-and-after studies, four were non-equivalent controlled studies with a historical control, one was a non-equivalent controlled study with a post-test only and two were non-equivalent controlled studies with pre- and post-test findings for the intervention group and post-test for the control group. Twenty-one studies assessed the effects of interventions related to plagiarism and 10 studies assessed interventions in research integrity/ethics. Participants included undergraduates, postgraduates and academics from a range of research disciplines and countries, and the studies assessed different types of outcomes. We judged most of the included randomized controlled trials to have a high risk of bias in at least one of the assessed domains, and in the case of non-randomized trials there were no attempts to alleviate the potential biases inherent in the non-randomized designs. We identified a range of interventions aimed at reducing research misconduct. Most interventions involved some kind of training, but methods and content varied greatly and included face-to-face and online lectures, interactive online modules, discussion groups, homework and practical exercises. Most studies did not use standardized or validated outcome measures and it was impossible to synthesize findings from studies with such diverse interventions, outcomes and participants. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that various methods of training in research integrity had some effects on participants' attitudes to ethical issues but minimal (or short-lived) effects on their knowledge. Training about plagiarism and paraphrasing had varying effects on participants' attitudes towards plagiarism and their confidence in avoiding it, but training that included practical exercises appeared to be more effective. Training on plagiarism had inconsistent effects on participants' knowledge about and ability to recognize plagiarism. Active training, particularly if it involved practical exercises or use of text-matching software, generally decreased the occurrence of plagiarism although results were not consistent. The design of a journal's author contribution form affected the truthfulness of information supplied about individuals' contributions and the proportion of listed contributors who met authorship criteria. We identified no studies testing interventions for outcomes at the organizational level. The numbers of events and the magnitude of intervention effects were generally small, so the evidence is likely to be imprecise. No adverse effects were reported. Authors' conclusions The evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous, inappropriate for meta-analyses and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain. Many studies had a high risk of bias because of the choice of study design and interventions were often inadequately reported. Even when randomized designs were used, findings were difficult to generalize. Due to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain. Low quality evidence indicates that training about plagiarism, especially if it involves practical exercises and use of text-matching software, may reduce the occurrence of plagiarism.

Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, Rothstein HR, Sambunjak D (2016) Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Number 4 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2 Publisher: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2/abstract

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Research ethics education in Korea for overcoming culture and value system differences (Papers: Hwan-Jin Nho 2016)

Abstract Although ethical standards and procedures for research in Korea have developed closer to global standards, applying those standards and procedures have led significant conflicts widely due to the cultural differences. In Korea where relationship-centered East Asian values are crucial, it is difficult for ‘internal whistle-blowing’... More

Abstract Although ethical standards and procedures for research in Korea have developed closer to global standards, applying those standards and procedures have led significant conflicts widely due to the cultural differences. In Korea where relationship-centered East Asian values are crucial, it is difficult for ‘internal whistle-blowing’ and ‘conflicts of interest management’ to function properly. At universities, it is difficult to form an equal relationship to have a free discussion between professors and students. Also, the research community has been influenced by side effects such as ‘respect for quantity and speed’, ‘excessive competition’, and ‘mammonism’ that have permeated Korean society during its modernization process. Students have taken such values for granted, too. These circumstances disable research ethics system to function properly and have negative influence on organization development by discouraging open innovation. In this context, how can we educate students to follow the global standards as well as dealing with conflicts derived from cultural differences wisely? I propose that the overarching principle of research ethics education should not be a ‘delivery of knowledge’ but be a ‘change in the way of thinking’. In this paper, five-stage education is proposed. As education methods, discussing of dilemma cases, avoiding remote online education and leading the whole team teaching classes by one head lecturer are recommended. In addition, classroom education should be provided together with social education to change the students’ ways of thinking. As for social education, self-effort of universities and operational behaviour of research laboratories are two most important aspects. The government should establish legislation and expand financial support to facilitate these changes. It is very important that the universities should become key drivers that purify their member societies so that the nation may prosper. Keyword Research ethics Research ethics education Scope of research ethics Disparity in Korean society Educational method

Nho HJJ (2016) Research ethics education in Korea for overcoming culture and value system differences. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2(4) DOI: 10.1186/s40852-016-0030-3 Publisher (Open access): https://jopeninnovation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40852-016-0030-3 

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Gossip as Social Control: Informal Sanctions on Ethical Violations in Scientific Workplaces (Papers: Brandon Vaidyanathan September 2016)EH

[colored_box]Abstract: Research on misconduct in science has largely focused on egregious violations such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Recent scholarship, however, calls for greater attention to forms of everyday misconduct and how scientists navigate ethical ambiguity when they are unable or unwilling to make formal accusations. Drawing on interview data... More

[colored_box]Abstract: Research on misconduct in science has largely focused on egregious violations such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Recent scholarship, however, calls for greater attention to forms of everyday misconduct and how scientists navigate ethical ambiguity when they are unable or unwilling to make formal accusations. Drawing on interview data from 251 physicists and biologists from both elite and non-elite universities and research institutes in the United States, United Kingdom, and India, we find that scientists are often reticent or unable to take formal action against many behaviors they perceive as unethical and irresponsible. As a result, they resort to informal gossip to warn colleagues of transgressors. Many express confidence that such pro-social gossip can serve as a means of social control by tarnishing the reputations of transgressors. Yet its effectiveness as a form of social control is limited, particularly when transgressors enjoy higher status than gossipers. We identify two types and three consequences of such gossip and assess the effectiveness of gossip as a means of social control. Finally, we consider the implications of our study for understanding and decreasing misconduct in science. Keywords: Gossip; Misconduct; Science; Scientists; Ethics

Vaidyanathan B, Khalsa S and Ecklund EH  (2016) Gossip as Social Control: Informal Sanctions on Ethical Violations in Scientific Workplaces Social Problems DOI: 10.1093/socpro/spw022 Publisher: http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/19/socpro.spw022.abstract

Read Retraction Watch's interview with Brandon Vaidyanathan about this work

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (Papers: Marc Edwards and Roy Siddhartha 2016)

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... More

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.

Edwards MA and Siddhartha R (2016) Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science. September 2016, ahead of print. doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223. Publisher: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Recognition for peer review and editing in Australia – and beyond? (Papers: Alice Meadows 2015)

Published/Released on January 07, 2015 | Posted by Admin on October 15, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Following a lively discussion on the challenges of finding peer reviewers and journal editors at a Best Practice Journal Publishing seminar in our Melbourne office earlier this year a group of 40+ Australian Wiley editors recently wrote an open letter to their universities, funders, and other research... More

Following a lively discussion on the challenges of finding peer reviewers and journal editors at a Best Practice Journal Publishing seminar in our Melbourne office earlier this year a group of 40+ Australian Wiley editors recently wrote an open letter to their universities, funders, and other research institutions and organizations in Australia. Highlighting both the benefits that the work of peer reviewers and journal editors bring to the scholarly community and the increasing problems of recruiting academics to undertake this important work, the letter calls for Australian funders and institutions to recognize peer review and journal editing as important contributions to research, as well as to reward them - initially via the ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia) framework. The letter, which is reproduced below, was also the subject of a recent commentary in Spectrum by Cherry Agustin, Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. We'd be interested to know what you think - do you agree that reviewing and editing should be officially recognized as contributing to research? Please let us know by commenting below or tweeting us @WileyExchanges. Journal Reviewing and Editing: Institutional Support is Essential This submission to institutions relevant to the Higher Education Sector in Australia has been coordinated by Associate Professor Martha Macintyre at the University of Melbourne on behalf of Australian editors of academic journals.

Meadows, A (2015) Recognition for peer review and editing in Australia - and beyond? Posted in Discover the Future of Research on Jan 7, 2015 3:00:15 AM https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2015/01/07/recognition-for-peer-review-and-editing-in-australia-and-beyond

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The Importance – and the Complexities – of Data Sharing (Papers: Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. et al 2016)

Published/Released on September 22, 2016 | Posted by Admin on October 14, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We at the Journal are committed to making the sharing of clinical trial data an effective, efficient, and sustainable part of biomedical research. This issue of the Journal includes three Perspective articles on the topic of data sharing. Grossman et al. describe the Genomic Data Commons, which will initially... More

We at the Journal are committed to making the sharing of clinical trial data an effective, efficient, and sustainable part of biomedical research. This issue of the Journal includes three Perspective articles on the topic of data sharing. Grossman et al. describe the Genomic Data Commons, which will initially house raw genomic data and diagnostic, histologic, and clinical outcome data from National Cancer Institute–funded projects.1 Lo and DeMets recommend steps for addressing clinical trialists’ primary reservations about sharing their data.2 And Rockhold et al. consider progress to date and a path forward that could avert the creation of a fragmented data-sharing landscape.3 In August 2016, we published four Perspective articles on the same topic — two by experts who favored rapid open access to clinical trial data and two by other experts who were more reserved in their enthusiasm, focusing on the hurdles to be overcome.4-7 With these articles, and with others to come, our goal is to bring to the table a wide variety of opinions about the value, risks, unknowns, and rewards that accompany data sharing in the context of clinical trials. We firmly believe that complex issues are best clarified through open discussion and the airing of various viewpoints. Only by seeing the issue through many sets of eyes can we achieve the clarity we need to move forward. We hope that you will read each of these pieces with this idea in mind. Our enemy is disease and the human toll it takes. We need to use every means possible to come closer to vanquishing the real foe.

Drazen JM, Morrissey S, Malina D, Hamel MB, and Campion EW (2016) The Importance - and the Complexities - of Data Sharing. New England Journal of Medicine. 375 pp1182-1183 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1611027 Publisher (Open Access): http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1611027 Interview with Jeffrey Drazen: Listen | Download

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2, resource #3


A shady market in scientific papers mars Iran’s rise in science – Science (Richard Stone September 2016)

"Can you write me a thesis?" asks the woman, who h... More

"Can you write me a thesis?" asks the woman, who has called a number from a flier taped to the main gate of Iran’s prestigious University of Tehran. The woman, an actress, is posing as a botany graduate student from Islamic Azad University (IAU), Abadeh, in Fars province. Her topic is the flora of the Khuzestan region, she explains with a Fars accent to the salesman at the other end of the line. He obligingly lays out a schedule for delivery of thesis chapters. “If your subject doesn’t need lab work,” he says, the cost will be a mere 1.8 million tomans ($600), plus another $400 if she desires a paper, published under her name in a reputable journal. The firm is one of a veritable army of outfits in Iran that offer to write theses and scientific papers for a fee, advertising on the internet, through fliers, and via the placard-carrying touts who line the sidewalk outside the University of Tehran. The actress, a movie star in Iran, was helping out a friend at the university who is infuriated with the firms—but the call she made on his behalf was hardly a sting. The transactions may be unethical, but they are legal. For now. This autumn, Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, is expected to take up work on a bill that would outlaw shady practices in scientific publishing. That’s none too soon, says Javad Rahighi, director of the Iranian Light Source Facility (ILSF) here. “It’s very bad for Iran’s science image,” he says. “This is one of the problems of an oil and gas country,” adds Sorena Sattari, Iran’s vice president for science and technology. “We think we can buy everything.”

Read the remainder of this discussion piece

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Review Articles: The Black-Market of Scientific Currency (Papers: Lee W. Cohnstaedt, Jesse Poland 2016)

Published/Released on September 08, 2016 | Posted by Admin on September 19, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Citations are the scientific currency that quantifies the success of an individual or journal. Impact factor, H-factor, and other derivatives of citation number determine an author’s prestige in addition to a possible monetary value when journal articles are examined for job promotion, recognition awards, and grants. Similarly, journals that... More

Citations are the scientific currency that quantifies the success of an individual or journal. Impact factor, H-factor, and other derivatives of citation number determine an author’s prestige in addition to a possible monetary value when journal articles are examined for job promotion, recognition awards, and grants. Similarly, journals that are more highly cited are viewed as more competitive and to have a broader readership. The correlation states, the more highly cited a paper or journal, the greater the importance and advancement of the research field. However, these assumptions are flawed because review papers are more commonly cited than original manuscripts in all…

Cohnstaedt LW, Poland J (2016) Review Articles: The Black-Market of Scientific Currency. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aesa/saw061 Open access: http://aesa.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/07/aesa.saw061.full

Less

View full details | Go to resource


The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (Papers: Michèle B. Nuijten et al 2015)

Published/Released on October 23, 2015 | Posted by Admin on September 3, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract This study documents reporting errors in a sample of over 250,000 p-values reported in eight major psychology journals from 1985 until 2013, using the new R package “statcheck.” statcheck retrieved null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) results from over half of the articles from this period. In line with earlier research,... More

Abstract This study documents reporting errors in a sample of over 250,000 p-values reported in eight major psychology journals from 1985 until 2013, using the new R package “statcheck.” statcheck retrieved null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) results from over half of the articles from this period. In line with earlier research, we found that half of all published psychology papers that use NHST contained at least one p-value that was inconsistent with its test statistic and degrees of freedom. One in eight papers contained a grossly inconsistent p-value that may have affected the statistical conclusion. In contrast to earlier findings, we found that the average prevalence of inconsistent p-values has been stable over the years or has declined. The prevalence of gross inconsistencies was higher in p-values reported as significant than in p-values reported as nonsignificant. This could indicate a systematic bias in favor of significant results. Possible solutions for the high prevalence of reporting inconsistencies could be to encourage sharing data, to let co-authors check results in a so-called “co-pilot model,” and to use statcheck to flag possible inconsistencies in one’s own manuscript or during the review process. Keywords Reporting errorsp-valuesSignificanceFalse positivesNHSTQuestionable research practicesPublication bias

Nuijten MB, Hartgerink CHJ, van Assen MALM, Epskamp S and Wicherts JM (2015) “The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013),” Behavior Research Methods, pp. 1-22, [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Ethical Ambiguity in Science (Papers: David R. Johnson, Elaine Howard Ecklund 2016)

Abstract Drawing on 171 in-depth interviews with physicists at universities in the United States and the UK, this study examines the narratives of 48 physicists to explain the concept of ethical ambiguity: the border where legitimate and illegitimate conduct is blurred. Researchers generally assume that scientists agree on what constitutes... More

Abstract Drawing on 171 in-depth interviews with physicists at universities in the United States and the UK, this study examines the narratives of 48 physicists to explain the concept of ethical ambiguity: the border where legitimate and illegitimate conduct is blurred. Researchers generally assume that scientists agree on what constitutes both egregious and more routine forms of misconduct in science. The results of this study show that scientists perceive many scenarios as ethically gray, rather than black and white. Three orientations to ethical ambiguity are considered—altruism, inconsequential outcomes, and preserving the status quo—that allow possibly questionable behavior to persist unchallenged. Each discursive strategy is rationalized as promoting the collective interest of science rather than addressing what is ethically correct or incorrect. The results of this study suggest that ethics training in science should focus not only on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and more routine forms of misconduct, but also on strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios where appropriate action may not be clear. Keywords Ambiguity, Physics, Cross-national, Deontology, Consequentialism, Phronesis

Johnson, D.R. & Ecklund, E.H (2016) Ethical Ambiguity in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 22(4) pp 989–1005. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9 Publisher: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-015-9682-9

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Embedding responsible conduct in learning and research into an Australian undergraduate curriculum (Papers: Lynette B Fernandes 2016)

Abstract: Responsible conduct in learning and research (RCLR) was progressively introduced into the pharmacology curriculum for undergraduate science students at The University of Western Australia. In the second year of this undergraduate curriculum, a lecture introduces students to issues such as the use of animals in teaching and responsible conduct... More

Abstract: Responsible conduct in learning and research (RCLR) was progressively introduced into the pharmacology curriculum for undergraduate science students at The University of Western Australia. In the second year of this undergraduate curriculum, a lecture introduces students to issues such as the use of animals in teaching and responsible conduct of research. Third year student groups deliver presentations on topics including scientific integrity and the use of human subjects in research. Academic and research staff attending these presentations provide feedback and participate in discussions. Students enrolled in an optional capstone Honours year complete an online course on the responsible conduct of research and participate in an interactive movie. Once RCLR became established in the curriculum, a survey of Likert-scaled and open-ended questions examined student and staff perceptions. Data were expressed as Approval (% of responses represented by Strongly Agree and Agree). RCLR was found to be relevant to the study of pharmacology (69-100% Approval), important for one's future career (62-100% Approval), and stimulated further interest in this area (32-75% Approval). Free entry comments demonstrated the value of RCLR and constructive suggestions for improvement have now been incorporated. RCLR modules were found to be a valuable addition to the pharmacology undergraduate curriculum. This approach may be used to incorporate ethics into any science undergraduate curriculum, with the use of discipline-specific topics. © 2016 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2016. KEYWORDS: ethics education; ethics in science and scientific research; integration of research into undergraduate teaching; pharmacology; responsible conduct

Fernandes LB (2016) Embedding responsible conduct in learning and research into an Australian undergraduate curriculum. Biochemistry Molecular Biology Education. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20990 Publisher: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20990.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Ethical considerations in naming authors of scientific papers (Papers: Sepideh Mohammadi and Tajmohammad Arazi 2015)

Published/Released on July 01, 2015 | Posted by Admin on June 1, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract: Nowadays academic life is closely related to the issue of publication. Consequently, there are numerous challenges in naming authors of scientific papers and publication ethics in general, making it essential to identify the various problems in this area. The present article acquires a historical view to investigate the... More

Abstract: Nowadays academic life is closely related to the issue of publication. Consequently, there are numerous challenges in naming authors of scientific papers and publication ethics in general, making it essential to identify the various problems in this area. The present article acquires a historical view to investigate the challenges and solutions related to this topic. This is a review article based on a search of scientific databases from 1985 to 2014. Honorary authorship, coercion authorship, ghost authorship and non-compliance are instances of ethical issues in naming authors. To solve these problems, several agencies have provided ethical guidelines in this respect including the International Council of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE), contributorship, objective measurement tools and the National Directory of Ethics in Medical Research Publications. Nevertheless, studies point to the existence of problems in this area.In order to solve the existing issues, the evaluation system of scientific and research organizations should propel quantity-oriented evaluation over quality oriented criteria. We also believe that the educational system, specifically in the post graduate period, can affect scientific research and publication ethics to a great extent and thus promote ethical conduct in students and researchers. Keywords: authorship, publication misconduct, publication ethics,

Sepideh M, Tajmohammad A (2015) Ethical considerations in naming authors of scientific papers. Iranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 7(5):50-60 Publisher (Open access): http://ijme.tums.ac.ir/article-1-5465-en.html 

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


Case Study Non-Mandatory Ethics Bodies at Austrian Universities (Papers: Erich Griessler 2015)

Abstract: This case study analyses all together nine non-mandatory organizations and sub-units of the Austrian university landscape that deal with questions of research ethics or – some of them, more broadly – with ethical questions of research. The paper studies these organizations’ tasks, organizational set-ups, modes of operation and the... More

Abstract: This case study analyses all together nine non-mandatory organizations and sub-units of the Austrian university landscape that deal with questions of research ethics or – some of them, more broadly – with ethical questions of research. The paper studies these organizations’ tasks, organizational set-ups, modes of operation and the extent to which they are doing well in terms of “managing contestation” and “responsibilisation” of research. Moreover, the paper looks into factors that promote and inhibit their work. The case study is based on document analysis (see Annex) and nine interviews with chairpersons or senior employees of ethics bodies. The interviews were conducted between April and June 2014; eight of them face to face at people’s workplaces and one via telephone. The interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, were fully transcribed, paraphrased and analysed by thematic analysis. The sample includes six comprehensive and one technical university; one university specialized in veterinary medicine and one university specialized in agriculture and life sciences. It comprises different institutional responses to address the question of ethics in research and innovation. In five cases these universities established ethics commissions, other institutions are called “ethics platform”, “agency for scientific integrity”, “university commission for scientific integrity and ethics” and “advisory board for ethical questions in scientific research”. With the exception of one organization, which is a joint establishment of several member organizations comprising university and non-university research organizations, all other bodies are located within the university. This study concerns basic and applied research by Austrian publicly funded universities. However, it also touches upon issues of contract research from industry and the public sector which is carried out at public universities.

Griessler E (2015) Case Study Non-Mandatory Ethics Bodies at Austrian Universities. ResAGorA Publisher (Open access): http://irihs.ihs.ac.at/3686/1/IHS%20-%20Griessler_non%20mandatory%20ethics%20body_final.pdf This paper will be presented at the 4S/EASST conference, Barcelona August 31-September 3 2016

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication (Review) (Papers: Ana Marusic et al 2016)

A B S T R A C T Background Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. Objectives Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct... More

A B S T R A C T Background Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. Objectives Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on the behaviour and attitudes of researchers in health and other research areas. Search methods We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS and CINAHL health research bibliographical databases, as well as the Academic Search Complete, AGRICOLA, GeoRef, PsycINFO, ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. We performed the last search on 15 April 2015 and the search was limited to articles published between 1990 and 2014, inclusive. We also searched conference proceedings and abstracts from research integrity conferences and specialized websites. We handsearched 14 journals that regularly publish research integrity research. Selection criteria We included studies that measured the effects of one or more interventions, i.e. any direct or indirect procedure that may have an impact on research integrity and responsible conduct of research in its broadest sense, where participants were any stakeholders in research and publication processes, from students to policy makers. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, such as controlled before-and-after studies, with comparisons of outcomes in the intervention versus non-intervention group or before versus after the intervention. Studies without a control group were not included in the review. Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess the risk of bias in non-randomized studies, we used a modified Cochrane tool, in which we used four out of six original domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, other sources of bias) and two additional domains (comparability of groups and confounding factors). We categorized our primary outcome into the following levels: 1) organizational change attributable to intervention, 2) behavioural change, 3) acquisition of knowledge/skills and 4) modification of attitudes/perceptions. The secondary outcome was participants’ reaction to the intervention. Main results Thirty-one studies involving 9571 participants, described in 33 articles,met the inclusion criteria. All were published in English. Fifteen studies were randomized controlled trials, nine were controlled before-and-after studies, four were non-equivalent controlled studies with a historical control, one was a non-equivalent controlled study with a post-test only and two were non-equivalent controlled studies with pre- and post-test findings for the intervention group and post-test for the control group. Twenty-one studies assessed the effects of interventions related to plagiarism and 10 studies assessed interventions in research integrity/ethics. Participants included undergraduates, postgraduates and academics from a range of research disciplines and countries, and the studies assessed different types of outcomes. We judged most of the included randomized controlled trials to have a high risk of bias in at least one of the assessed domains, and in the case of non-randomized trials there were no attempts to alleviate the potential biases inherent in the non-randomized designs. We identified a range of interventions aimed at reducing research misconduct. Most interventions involved some kind of training, but methods and content varied greatly and included face-to-face and online lectures, interactive online modules, discussion groups, homework and practical exercises. Most studies did not use standardized or validated outcome measures and it was impossible to synthesize findings from studies with such diverse interventions, outcomes and participants. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that various methods of training in research integrity had some effects on participants’ attitudes to ethical issues but minimal (or shortlived) effects on their knowledge. Training about plagiarism and paraphrasing had varying effects on participants’ attitudes towards plagiarism and their confidence in avoiding it, but training that included practical exercises appeared to be more effective. Training on plagiarism had inconsistent effects on participants’ knowledge about and ability to recognize plagiarism. Active training, particularly if it involved practical exercises or use of text-matching software, generally decreased the occurrence of plagiarism although results were not consistent. The design of a journal’s author contribution form affected the truthfulness of information supplied about individuals’ contributions and the proportion of listed contributors who met authorship criteria. We identified no studies testing interventions for outcomes at the organizational level. The numbers of events and the magnitude of intervention effects were generally small, so the evidence is likely to be imprecise. No adverse effects were reported. Authors’ conclusions The evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous, inappropriate for meta-analyses and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain. Many studies had a high risk of bias because of the choice of study design and interventions were often inadequately reported. Even when randomized designs were used, findings were difficult to generalize. Due to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain. Low quality evidence indicates that training about plagiarism, especially if it involves practical exercises and use of text-matching software, may reduce the occurrence of plagiarism. P

Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, Rothstein HR and Sambunjak D. Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000038. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2. Publisher (Open access): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/14651858.MR000038/asset/MR000038.pdf?v=1&t=ioor0uoj&s=85b587eebf3924145a138768208a6530a569012e

Less

View full details | Go to resource


EDITORIAL: Organised crime against the academic peer review system (Papers: Adam Cohen et al 2016)

Published/Released on May 23, 2016 | Posted by Admin on May 25, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Plagiarism and Ethics for Medical and Scientific Researchers (Shitalkumar Sagari 2014)

Excerpt: It is the responsibility of educators at medical institutions and departments to teach their students about writing ethics and best practices. The principle of good medical writing or scientific writing is a clear, brief, exact, and it should be honest presentation of the scientific ideas. PLAGIARISM Plagiarism is a serious form... More

Excerpt: It is the responsibility of educators at medical institutions and departments to teach their students about writing ethics and best practices. The principle of good medical writing or scientific writing is a clear, brief, exact, and it should be honest presentation of the scientific ideas. PLAGIARISM Plagiarism is a serious form of scientific misconduct that results from “the failure to attribute words, ideas, or findings to their true authors” Specifically, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) defines plagiarism as “the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source”

Sagari S (2014) Plagiarism and Ethics for Medical and Scientific Researchers. Journal of Dental Problems Solutions 1(1): 004-005. DOI: 10.17352/2394-8418.000002 Publisher (Open access): http://www.peertechz.com/Dental-Problems-Solutions/JDPS-1-102.php

Less

View full details | Go to resource


“Science advances incrementally:” Researchers who debunked gay canvassing study move field forward – Interview by Retraction Watch ( Alison McCook2016)

Excerpt: How easy is it to change people’s minds? In 2014, a Science study suggested that a short conversation could have a lasting impact on people’s opinions about gay marriage – but left readers disappointed when it was retracted only months later, after the first author admitted to... More

Excerpt: How easy is it to change people’s minds? In 2014, a Science study suggested that a short conversation could have a lasting impact on people’s opinions about gay marriage – but left readers disappointed when it was retracted only months later, after the first author admitted to falsifying some of the details of the study, including data collection. We found out about the problems with the paper thanks to Joshua Kalla at the University of California, Berkeley and David Broockman at Stanford University, who tried to repeat the remarkable findings. Last week, Kalla and Broockman published a Science paper suggesting what the 2014 paper showed was, in fact, correct – they found that 10-minute conversations about the struggles facing transgender people reduced prejudices against them for months afterwards. We spoke with Kalla and Broockman about the remarkable results from their paper, and the shadow of the earlier retraction. Retraction Watch: Let’s start with your latest paper. You found that when hundreds of people had a short (average of 10 minutes) face-to-face conversation with a canvasser (some of whom were transgender), they showed more acceptance of transgender people three months later than people with the same level of “transphobia” who’d talked to the canvasser about recycling. Were you surprised by this result, given that a similar finding from Michael LaCour and Donald Green, with same-sex marriage, had been retracted last year? Joshua Kalla and David Broockman: When Science retracted that study, it did not disprove the original hypothesis that high-quality, two-way canvass conversations about same-sex marriage could change attitudes. Retracting the study simply meant the hypothesis was unproven. With that said, it’s also important to note that that study (and our study) are not the only studies of canvassing — there’s a lot of work that’s been done on this general topic for over a decade that finds high-quality conversations can have large effects (see more below). So we had an open mind about the potential for these very in-depth conversations to have meaningful impacts on prejudice outcomes. At the same time, we also know many great ideas don’t end up working, so we weren’t sure exactly what to expect (see below). That’s why we have data!

Click here to read the full interview About the previous retracted paper

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Self Correction: What to do when you realize your publication is fatally flawed (Papers: Kerry Grens 2015)

Published/Released on December 01, 2015 | Posted by Admin on February 18, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , ,

"At a Keystone Symposia meeting a couple of years ago, Pamela Ronald delivered the most difficult talk of her life. She studies plant immunology at the University of California, Davis, but instead of discussing her group’s latest findings, she decided to detail its recent mistake: while performing routine validation... More

"At a Keystone Symposia meeting a couple of years ago, Pamela Ronald delivered the most difficult talk of her life. She studies plant immunology at the University of California, Davis, but instead of discussing her group’s latest findings, she decided to detail its recent mistake: while performing routine validation assays, students in her lab had found that one of the lab’s bacterial strains was mislabeled. They also discovered that a protein assay they had used was not reliable. That meant that her conclusions in two papers she’d published in 2011 and 2009 about the identity of a long-sought bacterial protein recognized by the rice immune system were likely wrong. “Never had I heard anyone give a talk like that,” she says. But she felt compelled to use the platform to let her peers know about the error. Audible gasps arose from the crowd. At one point, someone in the audience covered his face with his hands and shook his head, she recalls. “I’ll never forget it.” Ultimately, Ronald retracted both papers, one from PLOS ONE and another from Science. As word got around about how forthcoming she was—in her talk at the conference and in alerting the journals to the problems—she began to receive pats on the back. The blog Retraction Watch applauded Ronald for “doing the right thing,” and researchers echoed the sentiment, saying it must have been a tough decision. “On the one hand I was really very flattered I got that reaction from people, but [I was] also a little bit puzzled,” Ronald says. “I never thought there was a choice.”" Tags: science publishing, retraction, publishing, literature, culture and corrections

Grens K (2015) Self Correction: What to do when you realize your publication is fatally flawed. The Scientist. 29(12) Available from: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44594/title/Self-Correction/ (Accessed 19 February 2016).

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Pedagogical Support for Responsible Conduct of Research Training (Papers: Misti Ault Anderson 2016)

Abstract: The number of training programs for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has increased substantially over the past few decades as the importance of research ethics has received greater attention. It is unclear, however, whether the proliferation of RCR training programs has improved researcher integrity or the public's trust in science. Rather than training researchers simply to comply with regulations, we could use the opportunity to develop researchers' ability to understand and appreciate the ethical ideals that inform the regulations in order to help them integrate ethical decision-making into their work on a regular basis. Incorporating ethical principles into research training requires a new way of teaching RCR and the development of support materials to facilitate its adoption. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, a panel established to advise the President on bioethical issues arising from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology,... More

Abstract: The number of training programs for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has increased substantially over the past few decades as the importance of research ethics has received greater attention. It is unclear, however, whether the proliferation of RCR training programs has improved researcher integrity or the public's trust in science. Rather than training researchers simply to comply with regulations, we could use the opportunity to develop researchers' ability to understand and appreciate the ethical ideals that inform the regulations in order to help them integrate ethical decision-making into their work on a regular basis. Incorporating ethical principles into research training requires a new way of teaching RCR and the development of support materials to facilitate its adoption. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, a panel established to advise the President on bioethical issues arising from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology, developed and provides pedagogical materials based on its published reports to facilitate the integration of ethics education across the curriculum and in support of RCR and general bioethics education.

Anderson M (2016) Pedagogical Support for Responsible Conduct of Research Training. Hastings Center Report. 46(1) 18-25. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291390484_Pedagogical_Support_for_Responsible_Conduct_of_Research_Training (accessed 16 February). Publisher (Open access) http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/HCR/Detail.aspx?id=7728#ixzz40IiKiqjH

  Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research? (Papers: Ainsley J Newson and Wendy Lipworth 2015)

Published/Released on September 01, 2015 | Posted by Admin on February 8, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

Abstract: Issue addressed:Most academic journals that publish studies involving human participants require evidence that the research has been approved by a human research ethics committee (HREC). Yet journals continue to receive submissions from authorswho have failed to obtain such approval. In this paper, we provide an ethical justification of why... More

Abstract: Issue addressed:Most academic journals that publish studies involving human participants require evidence that the research has been approved by a human research ethics committee (HREC). Yet journals continue to receive submissions from authorswho have failed to obtain such approval. In this paper, we provide an ethical justification of why journals should not, in general,publish articles describing research that has no ethics approval, with particular attention to the health promotion context. Methods:Using theoretical bioethical reasoning and drawing on a case study, we first rebut some potential criticisms of the need for research ethics approval. We then outline four positive claims to justify a presumption that research should, in most instances,be published only if it has been undertaken with HREC approval. Results:We present four justifications for requiring ethics approval before publication: (1) HREC approval adds legitimacy to the research; (2) the process of obtaining HREC approval can improve the quality of an intervention being investigated;(3) obtaining HREC approval can help mitigate harm; and (4) obtaining HREC approval demonstrates respect for persons. Conclusion:This paper provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of why research ethics approval should generally be obtained before publishing in the health promotion context.So what?Journals such as theHealth Promotion Journal of Australiahave recently begun to require research ethics approvalfor publishing research. Health promotion researchers will be interested in learning the ethical justification for this change.

Newson A and Lipworth W (2015) Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research?. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2015,26, 170–175. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283640817_Why_should_ethics_approval_be_required_prior_to_publication_of_health_promotion_research (accessed 9 February 2016) Publisher (Open Access): http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=HE15034

Less

View full details | Go to resource #1, resource #2


Do scientists need audits? (Papers: Viraj Mane and Amy Lossie 2015)

Published/Released on May 23, 2015 | Posted by Admin on February 5, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , ,

"If audits work for the Internal Revenue Service, could they also work for science? We’re pleased to present a guest post from Viraj Mane, a life sciences commercialization manager in Toronto, and Amy Lossie at the National Institutes of Health, who have a unique proposal for how to improve... More

"If audits work for the Internal Revenue Service, could they also work for science? We’re pleased to present a guest post from Viraj Mane, a life sciences commercialization manager in Toronto, and Amy Lossie at the National Institutes of Health, who have a unique proposal for how to improve the quality of papers: Random audits of manuscripts. Skim articles, books, documentaries, or movies about Steve Jobs and you’ll see that ruthlessness is the sine qua non of some of our greatest business leaders. It would be naïve to assume that scientists somehow resist these universal impulses toward leadership, competition, and recognition. In the white-hot field of stem cell therapy, where promising discoveries attract millions of dollars, egregious lapses in judgment and honesty have been uncovered in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. The nature of the offenses ranged from fraudulent (plagiarism and duplication of figures) to horrifying (female subordinates coerced into donating their eggs). When a researcher embraces deception, the consequences extend well beyond the involved parties. Former physician Andrew Wakefield published a linkage between MMR vaccines and autism with overtly substandard statistical and experimental methods, while hiding how his financial compensation was tied to the very hysteria he helped unleash."

Mane V and Lossie A (2016) Do scientists need audits?. Retraction Watch, 23 May. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/04/do-scientists-need-audits/ (accessed 6 February 2016).

  Less

View full details | Go to resource


What to do when you make a mistake? Advice from authors who’ve been there (Alison McCook 2016)

"After a group of researchers noticed an error that affected the analysis of a survey of psychologists working with medical teams to help pediatric patients, they didn’t just issue a retraction — they published a commentary explaining what exactly went wrong. The error was discovered by a research assistant who was assembling a scientific poster, and noticed the data didn’t align with what was reported in the journal. The error, the authors note, was:

an honest one, a mistake of not reverse coding a portion of the data that none of the authors caught over several months of editing and conference calls. Unfortunately, this error led to misrepresentation and misinterpretation of a subset of the data, impacting the results and discussion.

Needless to say, these authors — who use their “lessons learned” to help other researchers avoid similar missteps — earn a spot in our “doing the right thing” category.... More

"After a group of researchers noticed an error that affected the analysis of a survey of psychologists working with medical teams to help pediatric patients, they didn’t just issue a retraction — they published a commentary explaining what exactly went wrong. The error was discovered by a research assistant who was assembling a scientific poster, and noticed the data didn’t align with what was reported in the journal. The error, the authors note, was:

an honest one, a mistake of not reverse coding a portion of the data that none of the authors caught over several months of editing and conference calls. Unfortunately, this error led to misrepresentation and misinterpretation of a subset of the data, impacting the results and discussion.

Needless to say, these authors — who use their “lessons learned” to help other researchers avoid similar missteps — earn a spot in our “doing the right thing” category. The retraction and commentary both appear in Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology. Their first piece of advice in “Retraction experience, lessons learned, and recommendations for clinician researchers” — assume errors will happen, and not vice versa:

1. Be mindful that the likelihood of making errors in a number of research endeavors is high and common. Assume that errors will be made rather than not! Risk for errors is higher in our current research climate where there are often larger study teams, the members are in different locations, and may represent individuals from different disciplines with diverse skillsets.

Other advice: Assign authors overlapping tasks to avoid “gaps in accountability,” regularly check data entry and analysis, and set aside large blocks of time for research to avoid missing details. There were a few tidbits that seemed especially important, from our perspective:

Own your errors and avoid defensiveness by covering them up or diverting responsibility. Handle errors when they are discovered. Although challenging and humbling, errors should be handled and promptly corrected when discovered. Keep in mind how much worse it will be if your errors are discovered by your editor, a reader, or your institution.

Other especially noteworthy advice: Model ethical conduct for your students by doing the right thing."

McCook A (2016) What to do when you make a mistake? Advice from authors who’ve been there. Retraction Watch, 5 March. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/27/authors-reveal-lessons-learned-from-a-pediatric-psych-retraction/ (accessed 31 January 2016).

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989: study (Papers: Marc Hauser et al 2015)

Published/Released on March 05, 2015 | Posted by Admin on January 30, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,

"Psychology has been home to some of the most infamous cases of fraud in recent years, and while it’s just a few bad apples who are spoiling the bunch, the field itself has seen an overall increase in retractions, according to a new paper by Jürgen Margraf appearing in... More

"Psychology has been home to some of the most infamous cases of fraud in recent years, and while it’s just a few bad apples who are spoiling the bunch, the field itself has seen an overall increase in retractions, according to a new paper by Jürgen Margraf appearing in Psychologische Rundschau and titled “Zur Lage der Psychologie.” That increase, Margraf found, is not entirely due to its most well-known fraudsters."

Hauser M, Smeesters D, Stapel D (2015) Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989: study. Retraction Watch, 5 March. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/05/psychology-retractions-have-quadrupled-since-1989-study/ (accessed 31 January 2016).

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Plagiarism struggles (Paper: Brian Martin 2008)

Published/Released on January 14, 2016 | Posted by Admin on January 14, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Abstract: Plagiarism can be analysed as struggle between perpetrators and opponents. The main tactics of weak perpetrators, such as students, are hiding their plagiarism and trying to explain it away. Powerful perpetrators can deploy more types of tactics, including disparaging the target, using official channels that give an illusion of... More

Abstract: Plagiarism can be analysed as struggle between perpetrators and opponents. The main tactics of weak perpetrators, such as students, are hiding their plagiarism and trying to explain it away. Powerful perpetrators can deploy more types of tactics, including disparaging the target, using official channels that give an illusion of justice, and making threats. Two case studies involving allegations of plagiarism are used to illustrate tactics used.

Brian Martin. Plagiarism struggles. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, Vol. 3, 2008. Tactics used by (alleged) plagiarists and those trying to detect or expose them.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Comment: citation shortcomings: peccadilloes or plagiarism? (Papers: Brian Martin 2008)

Published/Released on March 03, 2008 | Posted by Admin on January 14, 2016 | Keywords: , ,

"Citation shortcomings seldom become a burning issue among scholars. One possible reason is the difficulty of studying the problem. While it is relatively straightforward to assess whether the words and letters in citations are correct, it is far more difficult to determine whether authors have correctly chosen and used... More

"Citation shortcomings seldom become a burning issue among scholars. One possible reason is the difficulty of studying the problem. While it is relatively straightforward to assess whether the words and letters in citations are correct, it is far more difficult to determine whether authors have correctly chosen and used sources. Wright and Armstrong show one way to do this: examine the presence or absence of citations to a particular source known to be essential - in their case, Armstrong and Overton (1977) - and, when it is present, assess whether it has been correctly interpreted and implemented. This exemplary study reveals near-universal neglect or misuse of a relevant source. Another approach is to know the sources in a field comprehensively and to assess all the citations of papers in the field to look for both omissions and inappropriate inclusions. MacRoberts and MacRoberts (1989) used this method and reported a substantial level of citation bias and inaccuracy. They concluded that citations capture only a small proportion of the influence on a scientific paper: many sources that influence a paper are not cited."

Brian Martin. Comment: citation shortcomings: peccadilloes or plagiarism? Interfaces, Vol. 38, No. 2, March-April 2008, pp. 136-137.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Plagiarism: policy against cheating or policy for learning? (Papers: Brian Martin 2004)

Published/Released on February 04, 2004 | Posted by Admin on January 14, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Summary:  Compulsory use of plagiarism-detection software, specifically turnitin.com, is proposed for introduction at the University of Wollongong in 2004. The pros and cons of this are canvassed. There are several types of plagiarism, including plagiarism of ideas, word-for-word plagiarism, plagiarism of sources and plagiarism of authorship. Using plagiarism-detection software can readily pinpoint only word-for-word plagiarism,... More

Summary:  Compulsory use of plagiarism-detection software, specifically turnitin.com, is proposed for introduction at the University of Wollongong in 2004. The pros and cons of this are canvassed. There are several types of plagiarism, including plagiarism of ideas, word-for-word plagiarism, plagiarism of sources and plagiarism of authorship. Using plagiarism-detection software can readily pinpoint only word-for-word plagiarism, and only some instances of it. There are four main rationales for using plagiarism-detection software: deterring and detecting cheating; fostering learning of proper acknowledgement practice; building institutional reputation; and treating students fairly. None of these provides a strong case for compulsory use of the software. There are some serious negative effects of compulsory checking, especially reduced trust. Plagiarism-detection software potentially can play a valuable contribution if it is used voluntarily by students, on a case-by-case basis by teachers and as part of a wider process of learning proper acknowledgement practice.

Brian Martin. Plagiarism: policy against cheating or policy for learning? 4 February 2004. A short version was published in Nexus (Newsletter of the Australian Sociological Association), Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2004, pp. 15-16.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis (Papers: Brian Martin 1994)

Published/Released on September 15, 1994 | Posted by Admin on January 14, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

Abstract: Plagiarism is conventionally seen as a serious breach of scholarly ethics, being a theft of credit for ideas in a competitive intellectual marketplace. This emphasis overlooks the vast amount of institutionalized plagiarism, including ghostwriting and attribution of authorship to bureaucratic elites. There is a case for reducing the stigma... More

Abstract: Plagiarism is conventionally seen as a serious breach of scholarly ethics, being a theft of credit for ideas in a competitive intellectual marketplace. This emphasis overlooks the vast amount of institutionalized plagiarism, including ghostwriting and attribution of authorship to bureaucratic elites. There is a case for reducing the stigma for competitive plagiarism while exposing and challenging the institutionalized varieties.

Brian Martin. Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis. Journal of Information Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1994, pp. 36-47. On the over-emphasis on competitive plagiarism and the neglect of institutionalised plagiarism.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Scientific fraud and the power structure of science (Papers: Brian Martin 1992)

Published/Released on June 15, 1992 | Posted by Admin on January 14, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , ,

ABSTRACT: In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society... More

ABSTRACT: In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society -- scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests -- that have the dominant influence on priorities in science. Several prominent Australian cases illustrate how the denunciation of fraud helps to paint the rest of scientific behaviour as blameless. Keywords: scientific fraud, bias, misrepresentation

Brian Martin. Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98. How the definition of scientific fraud omits many commonplace forms of misrepretation and bias and serves the interests of scientific elites.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Fraud and Australian academics (Papers: Brian Martin 1989)

Published/Released on January 13, 2016 | Posted by Admin on January 13, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


Agent Orange: the new controversy (Brian Martin 1986)

Published/Released on November 11, 1986 | Posted by Admin on January 13, 2016 | Keywords: , ,

"A year after the final report of the Agent Orange Royal Commission, the federal government has responded to the concern of Vietnam veterans by reopening the issue that the commission considered closed. Conflicting scientific evidence and interpretation are back in the melting pot. But in this case there is... More

"A year after the final report of the Agent Orange Royal Commission, the federal government has responded to the concern of Vietnam veterans by reopening the issue that the commission considered closed. Conflicting scientific evidence and interpretation are back in the melting pot. But in this case there is an added factor - the conduct of the commission itself. When the report of a royal commission contains hundreds of pages copied without acknowledgement straight from the submission of one of the interested parties, what are the implications? This problem will quickly become pressing in any reevaluation of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Claims by Vietnam veterans that some of their health problems have been caused by exposure to the multitude of chemical agents used in the war are politically explosive. A judgement in favour of the veterans would provide support to the Vietnamese government in pursuing claims against the United States government for the effects of chemical warfare. The chemical industry has most to lose from a decision in favour of the veterans. For example, the ingredients of Agent Orange itself, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T with some admixture of TCDD or 'dioxin', have long been used as herbicides in agriculture and elsewhere. A decision against the chemicals would be a body blow to the chemical industry both financially and ideologically."

Brian Martin. Agent Orange: the new controversy. Australian Society, Vol. 5, No. 11, November 1986, pp. 25-26. On the Agent Orange Royal Commission's plagiarism of Monsanto's submission.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Plagiarism and responsibility (Papers: Brian Martin 1984)

Published/Released on October 02, 1984 | Posted by Admin on January 13, 2016 | Keywords: , ,

"Plagiarism is more prevalent in academia than normally acknowledged. Because it is a "taboo" topic, administrations are ill-equipped to investigate allegations of plagiarism. Two Australian examples are used to illustrate the need for more openness about and better procedures for dealing with this academic problem. Plagiarism is not uncommon in... More

"Plagiarism is more prevalent in academia than normally acknowledged. Because it is a "taboo" topic, administrations are ill-equipped to investigate allegations of plagiarism. Two Australian examples are used to illustrate the need for more openness about and better procedures for dealing with this academic problem. Plagiarism is not uncommon in academia, but its occurrence has received scant attention in public forums and hardly any in the scholarly literature. In this article I first describe the nature and extent of plagiarism in academia, and then use two Australian examples to illustrate the potential problems this poses for administrators. The Nature of Plagiarism Plagiarism has been defined as "the taking and using as one's own of the thoughts, writings, or inventions of another".[1] There are many varieties and degrees of plagiarism. I will deal here with plagiarism of written work in academia and science, although the problem is not limited to these areas.[2]"

Brian Martin. Plagiarism and responsibility. Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, Vol. 6, No. 2, October 1984, pp. 183-190.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Exploiting the academic peons (Papers: Brian Martin 1984)

Published/Released on October 01, 1983 | Posted by Admin on January 13, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , ,

"For academics, credit for research work is important. It serves as a form of currency for obtaining jobs, promotions, grants and prestige. Not surprisingly, credit for original ideas as well as for the end result of painstaking experimentation, data collection and mustering of arguments, is zealously guarded. Plagiarism is the... More

"For academics, credit for research work is important. It serves as a form of currency for obtaining jobs, promotions, grants and prestige. Not surprisingly, credit for original ideas as well as for the end result of painstaking experimentation, data collection and mustering of arguments, is zealously guarded. Plagiarism is the most blatant example of stealing credit. It is much more common than is usually recognised.[1] Closely related to plagiarism is faking of results, which in effect claims credit for work not done. Faking is also more common than is usually recognised.[2] What I call here academic exploitation is the taking of credit for work done by a person in a subordinate position. A variant is pressure on the subordinate to do work of a type or in a way which allows the superior to obtain undue credit. The exploiter's greater power in the relationship is used in establishing and retaining the unfair distribution of credit. An implicit or explicit threat of reprisals, such as a bad recommendation, is used to deter objections."

Brian Martin. Exploiting the academic peons. Australian Society, Vol. 2, No. 9, pp. 28-29 (1 October 1983). Reprinted as: Academic exploitation. In: Brian Martin, C. M. Ann Baker, Clyde Manwell and Cedric Pugh (eds.), Intellectual Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1986), pp. 59-62.

Less

View full details | Go to resource


Scientific Misbehavior in Economics: Unacceptable research practice linked to perceived pressure to publish (Papers: Sarah Necker 2014)

Published/Released on July 23, 2014 | Posted by Admin on January 7, 2016 | Keywords: , , , , , , , ,

Upholding research integrity depends on our... More

Upholding research integrity depends on our ability to understand the extent of misconduct. Sarah Necker describes her landmark study on economists’ research norms and practices. Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism are widely considered to be unjustifiable, but misbehaviour is still prevalent. For example, 1-3% of economists surveyed admit that they have accepted or offered gifts, money, or sex in exchange for co-authorship, data, or promotion. Economists’ perceived pressure to publish is found to be positively related to their admission of being involved in several rejected research practices. Science is the endeavor to gain a deeper understanding of how the world works. Trust in scientific research is grounded on the assumption that the researchers report their work honestly and accurately. The results are expected to be unbiased by the researchers’ presumptions or strategic behavior. Experiments in the social sciences in which the researcher acted on behalf of each participant strongly mislead scientific progress. Cherry-picking of findings that conform to a desired hypothesis may be interpreted as the “quest for positive results” but not exactly as the “quest for truth.” While certain practices clearly represent scientific misbehavior, the justifiability of others is less obvious. What is the bottom line of acceptable behavior? How prevalent are rejected practices? An anonymous online survey among the members of the European Economic Association yields evidence for economics. It is the first study of economists’ research norms and their engagement in a variety of research practices.” Necker, S (2014) Scientific Misbehavior in Economics: Unacceptable research practice linked to perceived pressure to publish. LSE Impact Bloghttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/07/23/scientific-misbehavior-in-economics/ Less

View full details | Go to resource


Trust in research — the ethics of knowledge production (Garry Gray | TEDxVictoria)

Published/Released on December 22, 2014 | Posted by Admin on December 27, 2015 | Keywords: , , ,

"This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. We all take knowledge for granted every day: we assume that those who studied the health effects of using everyday products did their research accurately and without bias. But did they?" A copy of this TED... More

"This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. We all take knowledge for granted every day: we assume that those who studied the health effects of using everyday products did their research accurately and without bias. But did they?" A copy of this TED Talk can be accessed from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSV4VZ8gdUQ Less

View full details | Go to resource


JIF-boosting stratagems – Which are appropriate and which not? (Paper: B Martin, 2016)

Published/Released on February 01, 2016 | Posted by Admin on November 14, 2015 | Keywords: , , , , ,

Journal editors report having come under pressure to increase the Journal Impact Factor of their publication. Unfortunately, this has spawned a range of questionable editorial practices designed to game the system, including adding multiple citations to the journal in journal editorials, increasing self-citation within the journal by pressurising authors,... More

Journal editors report having come under pressure to increase the Journal Impact Factor of their publication. Unfortunately, this has spawned a range of questionable editorial practices designed to game the system, including adding multiple citations to the journal in journal editorials, increasing self-citation within the journal by pressurising authors, creating publication rings of self-citation practices between a small number of allied journals, queuing articles online for up to two years before hard publication. In a substantial and welcome editorial piece, Research Policy analyses these trends and argues that in compromising their own integrity editors are forfeiting their authority over other forms of research misconduct. Martin, B. (2016) Editorial: Editors’ JIF-boosting stratagems – Which are appropriate and which not? Research Policy 45, 1–7. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315001390 (Required university/ScienceDirect login) Less

View full details | Go to resource


Self-plagiarism Perspectives for librarians (Paper: Merle Rosenzweig and Anna Ercoli Schnitzer 2013)

Published/Released on October 15, 2013 | Posted by Admin on May 29, 2015 | Keywords: , , , ,

"As librarians it has often come to our attention ... More

"As librarians it has often come to our attention that a major source of confusion to many authors seems to be misunderstanding the ownership or the copyright of the published article. Because librarians are becoming more involved as resources for authors concerning the issues of copyright, they are playing a pivotal role in addressing the issue of self-plagiarism." Rosenzweig, M., & Schnitzer, A. E. (2013). Self-plagiarism Perspectives for librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 74(9), 492-494. Less

View full details | Go to resource


Research Ethics (Journal) – Most Read Articles (Updated monthly)

“Research Ethics is aimed at all readers and aut... More

“Research Ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research. The journal aims to promote, provoke, host and engage in open and public debate about research ethics on an international scale but also to contribute to the education of researchers and reviewers of research. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).” Less

View full details | Go to resource


Academic Dishonesty: The Question of Authorship (Papers: Gail Caruth 2014)

Published/Released on May 01, 2014 | Posted by Admin on May 22, 2015 | Keywords: , , , ,

View full details | Go to resource


0