Search

Fraudulent papers from paper mills are a serious threat to the entire scientific community. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology has become the target of a massive attack of fraudulent papers originating from paper mills. This editorial highlights 20 important features we observed with paper mills and explains how the journal is responding to this serious threat to restore the integrity of science. Hopefully, this editorial is also helpful for editors of other scientific journals.

This introductory essay frames our special issue by discussing how attention to the history of research integrity and fraud can stimulate new historical and methodological insights of broader import to historians of science.

Trust is essential for good patient care. Abuses in research and in medical care undermines trust in governmental medical care systems. Restoring trust involves acknowledging and correcting past harms to communities and individuals.

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

On May 2021, the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (SAAS) announced the publication of new guidelines on scientific integrity under the title “Code of conduct for sci- entific integrity” (hereafter “the Code”) [1]. The document was developed by a group of experts from the SAAS, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Rectors' Confer- ence of the Swiss Universities (swissuniversities), and the Swiss Innovation Agency (Innosuisse). The Code is an up- dated and expanded version of the document titled "In- tegrity in scientific research. Principles and procedures" that was issued by the SAAS in 2008.

This chapter analyzes how shifting university–industry–government boundaries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries have created new challenges for the governance of conflicts of interest (COIs) in biomedical research. Through an analysis of the institutionalization of “translational medicine” in the United States, the chapter examines how translational medicine has deeply embedded values of industry and commercialization within academic biomedical research. I detail how translational medicine's focus on market-based solutions to problems in the bench-to-bedside pipeline has created a climate in which activities that once might have been categorized as controversial COIs are increasingly supported, encouraged, and E in academic biomedical research communities, as well as by the institutions and federal agencies that support such researchers. Finally, the chapter turns to look at the tensions created in traditional academic structures, such as publishing outlets, where new debates about COI reporting and its consequences have sparked controversy. I conclude by considering what challenges these new formations of university–industry–government relations in biomedical research present for managing COIs, and for upholding the scientific integrity of biomedical research.

International audience

Corruption in science is a significant problem in the United States and internationally, especially in fields that impact perceived economic growth. While many reputable journals have published on scientific integrity, we recognize a need to provide ongoing critical attention to the diverse means used to manipulate science and science policy. This journal is an independent, peer-reviewed, open-access publication, as well as a call for greater integrity in scientific practice.

While a substantive literature has emerged on the prevalence, causes, and consequences of scientific misconduct, little is known about the organisational perspective in cases of (alleged) misconduct. We address this knowledge gap by employing a comparative case study approach to describe and assess the handling of four cases of alleged misconduct by their university, respectively in the Netherlands and Norway. We propose a theoretical model that explains how organisational responses to misconduct emerge and evolve as iterations of the processes of sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensehiding. In addition, we link these iterations to a set of background premises that nurture the organisational responses and to the responses’ outcomes and consequences. We conclude that several aspects of the organisational responses hinder effective learning processes within organisations and their members. Our analysis provides fruitful heuristics for organisations to reflect on, or plan their response strategies to allow for optimal learning.

The Research Center Borstel developed a bottom-up approach based on communication and team scouts to create a culture that fosters research integrity.

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

Philip Yeagle Ensuring the scientific integrity behind every paper published in scientific journals is an essential standard in the world of scientific publishing. Scientists depend on published work that accurately represents the experiments performed and the results obtained so that future work can be effectively planned and performed. Readers must know that high standards have been met for the integrity of the data and the experimental protocols utilized. The public must have confidence in the integrity of the results that are presented in the published papers because those results may influence and have import in their lives. The need to focus on scientific integrity in publishing is perhaps even more critical in our current climate. Some high-profile cases of misconduct have raised questions as to how widespread scientific misconduct is. The explosion in the number of scientific publishing outlets, some less subject to rigorous peer review than others, can shake confidence in the quality of published work. The …

Ethics versus moral was informed in a report on an apology of immorality. The syllabus of the Course/Workshop on Scientific Integrity/Ethics is reported. What can people expect if the scientific community forms an integral part of that same society? In peer evaluation systems, who does he teach people to practice a good refereeing? The objective of the Course/Workshop is that the student body obtain a general view on the integrity and ethics of science, fundamental for those who desire to begin science careers in a competitive world. Author contributions in the journal PLoS ONE are published in the periodical. Science communication in the 21st century, between naivete and cynicism, is presented from a sociological perspective. A study on knowledge psychology was carried out, with the objective of analyzing the relationship between scientific production, knowledge spreading and psychological characteristics of the authors of at least one scientific publication. The study belongs to the Generalitat Valenciana Research Project Sitting of the Flows of Academic Knowledge, Transference Channels and Personality Traits of Researchers. The work includes a questionnaire on the physiological characteristics of the authors of one or more scientific articles.

The world’s scientific research hub has been steadily shifting eastwards over the past two decades. Annual R&D spending for the so called Asia-8 economies (China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand) overtook the EU in the mid-2000s. In the 13th five-year plan (2016-20), China committed to increase R&D spending by 35% by 2020. In a demographic shift, the number of students from Asian countries in postgraduate education in science and engineering (both domestically and overseas) has grown rapidly. Other metrics of research productivity, such as journal publication output, show very rapid growth from Asia and from China in particular. While the big picture is encouraging, the burgeoning growth of science output from Asia imposes constraints on governance systems such as peer review and ethical oversight. Asia is also a continent of diversity with a variety of national guidelines on scientific integrity, uneven access to resources between and within countries and keen competition to raise the profile of universities within league tables. Within this context, Asia Oceania Geosciences Society was founded in 2003 to promote the application of geosciences for the benefit of humanity. In a region where natural hazards are prevalent, encouraging the sharing of understanding of risk management through scientific, social and technological means is important. The challenges of scientific integrity are manifest in this diverse and rapidly growing sector but so too are the opportunities for harnessing research to benefit society.

This article answers a number of questions that researchers, especially young ones, may ask as they face ethical norms about scientific research that can have serious professional consequences if violated. More generally, scientific integrity issues may include, beyond deontological rules, ethical behaviors that are less codified but for which, nevertheless, the scientific community agrees on certain principles. In this article, we remind the reader of the principles and rules that have been typically adopted by scientific journals, even if differences are observed from one journal to another. We also suggest a set of practices intended to prevent behaviors that would infringe on scientific integrity.

Purpose of review Since research ethics dilemmas frequently fall outside the purview of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), we present three unique recent research ethics cases in thyroidology that demonstrate research ethics dilemmas. Recent findings The cases presented raise questions surrounding epistemic/scientific integrity, publication ethics, and professional, and personal integrity. Summary Research ethics dilemmas that fall outside the purview of the IRB are appropriate for a Research Ethics Consultation, a common service in many large academic medical centers.

Research integrity has been under scrutiny, especially in regard to the legitimacy of academic authorship and co-authorship. We aim to bring a critical perspective to the debate, firstly by presenting how past and recent publications discuss (co-)authorship, and next by developing an appraisal analysis of discourse elements that make types of social sanction regarding the topic available. We conclude by pointing out certain criteria that validate (co-) authorship and kinds of evaluation produced in the reviewed literature. Our results indicate that (co-)authoship credit is affected by power relations and personal interest and that multiauthored publication is gaining significance in collaborative network research environments. RESUMO Integridade em pesquisa tem estado sob escrutínio, especialmente em relação à legitimidade de autoria e de coautoria acadêmica. Nosso objetivo é trazer uma perspectiva crítica ao debate, primeiramente apresentando o modo como publicações prévias e recentes discutem (co)autoria e, a seguir, desenvolvendo uma análise da avaliatividade de elementos do discurso que disponibilizam tipos de sanção social em relação ao tópico. Concluímos, apontando certos critérios que validam (co)autoria e tipos de avaliação produzidos na literatura revisada. Nossos resultados indicam que a atribuição de (co)autoria é afetada por relações de poder e interesses pessoais e também que a publicação assinada por vários autores está ganhando significação em contextos em que a pesquisa é feita em redes colaborativas.

The quality and integrity of the scientific literature have recently become the subject of heated debate. Due to an apparent increase in cases of scientific fraud and irreproducible research, some have claimed science to be in a state of crisis. A key concern in this debate has been the extent to which science is capable of self-regulation. Among various mechanisms, the peer review system in particular is considered an essential gatekeeper of both quality and sometimes even integrity in science. However, the allocation of responsibility for integrity to the peer review system is fairly recent and remains controversial. In addition, peer review currently comes in a wide variety of forms, developed in the expectation they can address specific problems and concerns in science publishing. At present, there is a clear need for a systematic analysis of peer review forms and the concerns underpinning them, especially considering a wave of experimentation fuelled by internet technologies and their promise to improve research integrity and reporting. We describe the emergence of current peer review forms by reviewing the scientific literature on peer review and by adding recent developments based on information from editors and publishers. We analyse the rationale for developing new review forms and discuss how they have been implemented in the current system. Finally, we give a systematisation of the range of discussed peer review forms. We pay detailed attention to the emergence of the expectation that peer review can maintain ‘the integrity of science’s published record’, demonstrating that this leads to tensions in the academic debate about the responsibilities and abilities of the peer review system.

Research ethics anew gained importance due to the changing scientific landscape and increasing demands and competition in the academic field. These changes are further exaggerated because of scarce(r) resources in some countries on the one hand and advances in genomics on the other. In this paper, we will highlight the current challenges thereof to scientific integrity. To mark key developments in research ethics, we will distinguish between what we call research ethics 1.0 and research ethics 2.0. Whereas research ethics 1.0 focuses on individual integrity and informed consent, research ethics 2.0 entails social scientific integrity within a broader perspective of a research network. This research network can be regarded as a network of responsibilities in which every stakeholder involved has to jointly meet the ethical challenges posed to research. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

Democrats hope Republicans will decide to cosponsor legislation to codify scientific integrity procedures at federal agencies.

New protocols for scientific integrity and data management issued by universities, journals, and transnational social science funding agencies are often modelled on medical or psychological research, and do not take account of the specific characteristics of the processes of ethnographic research. These guidelines provide ethnographers with some of the most basic principles of doing such research. They show that the primary response of ethnographers to requests to share research materials with third parties should be to remain aware of the fact that these research materials have been co-produced with their research participants; that the collaborative ethnographic research process resists turning these materials into commodified, impersonal ‘data’ that can be owned and shared publicly; and that therefore the primary response of ethnographers should be to retain custody of research materials.

High-profile reports of detrimental scientific practices leading to retractions in the scientific literature contribute to lack of trust in scientific experts. Although the bulk of these have been in the literature of other disciplines, environmental toxicology and chemistry are not free from problems. While we believe that egregious misconduct such as fraud, fabrication of data, or plagiarism is rare, scientific integrity is much broader than the absence of misconduct. We are more concerned with more commonly encountered and nuanced issues such as poor reliability and bias. We review a range of topics including conflicts of interests, competing interests, some particularly challenging situations, reproducibility, bias, and other attributes of ecotoxicological studies that enhance or detract from scientific credibility. Our vision of scientific integrity encourages a self-correcting culture that promotes scientific rigor, relevant reproducible research, transparency in competing interests, methods and results, and education. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:000-000. © 2019 SETAC.

Purpose To maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas deliberate scientific misconduct such as data fabrication is clearly unethical, other behaviors-often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)-exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported misconduct and QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers. Method In 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in a variety of irresponsible research behaviors. The items were adapted from previously published surveys. Results In total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD = 11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported irresponsible research behaviors were adding authors who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant's words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one irresponsible behavior. Conclusions Notwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of misconduct and QRPs. Consequently, reforms may be needed to improve the conduct of HPE research.

When publishing their research on natural products and traditional preparations from plants, authors need to use scientific plant names appropriately and unambiguously – both to ensure the scientific integrity of their research and to facilitate citation and recognition of their work. Whilst many papers follow best practice, including some in this issue (p. 623, p. 631), many others would have benefitted from improvements in their research procedures or the presentation of their results. Earlier authors have quantified the problems with plant names used in medicinal plant and nutritional science publications [1,2]. Here we highlight the most common mistakes that are made, giving a few examples, and offer advice on how best to approach the use of scientific plant names, in order that these mistakes can be avoided in future

The past few decades have witnessed rapid growth in research centered on the period of adolescence. Several markers of that growth are now obvious, such as multidisciplinary journals dedicated to that developmental period. But, it remains to be determined, like other fields of research that often contribute to the understanding of adolescence (genetics, cognitive science, medicine), whether multi-disciplinary developmental research on adolescence systematically evaluates the integrity of its findings. This study explores the extent to which the leading “adolescent” journals evaluate the state of knowledge that they disseminate, the importance of such evaluations, and challenges to the discipline’s scientific integrity. The review reveals that developmental journals devoted to the adolescent period pervasively do not publish articles that focus on reviews of research; it also finds that the most dominant forms of reviews are those deemed less rigorous. The discussion focuses on these findings’ implications and underscores the legitimacy and importance of doing what more established disciplines recognize as important and do more routinely.

Despite strong professional practice norms experimental economists are increasingly subject to sweeping ethics review processes. A central issue in these processes is the recruitment of students as “overresearched” participants. We critically discuss the potential associated ethical risks typically identified in ethics regulations. We then test the efficacy of potential design countermeasures. We find support for some (informed consent procedures, debriefings, non-differential rewards, opt-in) but not others (research outside class time, educational relevance, non-teacher researchers). The paper intends to inform economists’ (1) design choices to reduce ethical risks without sacrificing scientific integrity, and (2) justification of these choices to ethics review boards.

Philip Yeagle As a AAAS/ Science -family journal, Science Advances is committed to publishing innovative, original research that significantly advances the frontiers of science. Our success in this mission to date is anchored in part in the commitment of our authors to adhere to the highest levels of integrity in the conduct and reporting of their studies, which in turn yield the sterling quality of the submissions we publish. Most researchers adhere to these standards because they understand that the advancement of science is predicated on the conduct of research that is grounded in ethical, transparent, and reproducible methods. Science Advances upholds and promotes excellence in research and, therefore, strives to ensure that all the work published has been conducted with the highest levels …

This chapter suggests how a virtue-theoretic approach that focuses on the vocational values of scientific practice might work as an alternative, positive framework for science ethics. It also suggests how it helps to reconceive the way traditional Responsible Conduct of Research topics are taught, and how it expands the kind of issues that may fit under that heading. The chapter provides an unusually rich perspective for rethinking and reconceiving the scope and content of research ethics. It argues that a virtue-based approach that looks to the goals, values and virtues of scientific practice may assuage some of these problems and so have a better chance of fostering a culture of scientific integrity. The chapter develops a survey instrument aimed at capturing the views of scientists about precisely which character virtues are most important for the exemplary practice of science. It addresses the courses for science students framed in terms of the scientific virtues.

Journalology is the science of publication practices and the study of these activities. This communication details a centre for Journalology run by the Ottawa Hospital, Canada. The Centre has a valued role to play in the publication practices, ethics, and guides that researchers need in order to identify suitable journals for their research. Such centres are needed in every university so that the best publication practices are promoted and scientific integrity is maintained and enhanced.

Despite increasing interest in integrity issues, relatively few studies have examined researchers' own interpretations of integrity. As part of the Perspectives on Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) project, we sought to explore how researchers themselves define research integrity. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with clinical and laboratory-based researchers from across Switzerland. Data were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis and illustrative quotes were selected. Researchers defined integrity in terms of honesty, transparency, and objectivity, and generally stressed the importance of sticking to the research question and avoiding bias in data interpretation. Some saw research integrity as being synonymous with scientific integrity, but others regarded research integrity as being a subset of the wider domain of scientific integrity. A few participants equated research integrity with mere absence of misconduct, but the majority of participants regarded integrity as being more than this. Researchers regarded truth as the key aspect of integrity, though they expressed this in different ways and with various emphases on honesty, transparency, and objectivity. Integrity goes beyond avoiding misconduct, and scientific integrity has a wider domain than research integrity.

This chapter discusses the need for professional ethics, focusing on issues related to scientific integrity, the maintenance of transparency, and the need to avoid misconduct and conflicts of interest. In addition, the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report and the 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report on Forensic Science in Criminal Courts are presented in regard to their impact on the forensic sciences in general and forensic anthropology more specifically. Finally, this chapter touches on the need for training and education in ethics.