Publications

Research

Jump to: Review

235 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Failure to Replicate: A Sign of Scientific Misconduct?

by Helene Z. Hill and Joel H. Pitt

Publications 2014, 2(3), 71-82; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2030071 - 1 Sep 2014

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 8075

Abstract

Repeated failures to replicate reported experimental results could indicate scientific misconduct or simply result from unintended error. Experiments performed by one individual involving tritiated thymidine, published in two papers in Radiation Research, showed exponential killing of V79 Chinese hamster cells. Two other [...] Read more.

Repeated failures to replicate reported experimental results could indicate scientific misconduct or simply result from unintended error. Experiments performed by one individual involving tritiated thymidine, published in two papers in Radiation Research, showed exponential killing of V79 Chinese hamster cells. Two other members of the same laboratory were unable to replicate the published results in 15 subsequent attempts to do so, finding, instead, at least 100-fold less killing and biphasic survival curves. These replication failures (which could have been anticipated based on earlier radiobiological literature) raise questions regarding the reliability of the two reports. Two unusual numerical patterns appear in the questioned individual’s data, but do not appear in control data sets from the two other laboratory members, even though the two key protocols followed by all three were identical or nearly so. This report emphasizes the importance of: (1) access to raw data that form the background of reports and grant applications; (2) knowledge of the literature in the field; and (3) the application of statistical methods to detect anomalous numerical behaviors in raw data. Furthermore, journals and granting agencies should require that authors report failures to reproduce their published results. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

191 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology

by Felicitas Hesselmann, Verena Wienefoet and Martin Reinhart

Publications 2014, 2(3), 61-70; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2030061 - 3 Jul 2014

Cited by 14 | Viewed by 10413

Abstract

This article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, [...] Read more.

This article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, detection, punishment, and publication of a retraction notice, all contribute to the number of retractions and, hence, will result in biased estimates. Self-report measures, as well as analyses of retractions, are additionally affected by the absence of a consistent definition of misconduct. This problem of definition is addressed further as stemming from a lack of generally valid definitions both on the level of measuring misconduct and on the level of scientific practice itself. Because science is an innovative and ever-changing endeavor, the meaning of misbehavior is permanently shifting and frequently readdressed and renegotiated within the scientific community. Quantitative approaches (i.e., statistics) alone, thus, are hardly able to accurately portray this dynamic phenomenon. It is argued that more research on the different processes and definitions associated with misconduct and its detection and sanctions is needed. The existing quantitative approaches need to be supported by qualitative research better suited to address and uncover processes of negotiation and definition. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

188 KiB

Open AccessArticle

The Demographics of Deception: What Motivates Authors Who Engage in Misconduct?

by R. Grant Steen

Publications 2014, 2(2), 44-50; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2020044 - 28 Mar 2014

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 7675

Abstract

We hypothesized that scientific misconduct (data fabrication or falsification) is goal-directed behavior. This hypothesis predicts that papers retracted for misconduct: are targeted to journals with a high impact factor (IF); are written by authors with additional papers withdrawn for misconduct; diffuse responsibility across [...] Read more.

We hypothesized that scientific misconduct (data fabrication or falsification) is goal-directed behavior. This hypothesis predicts that papers retracted for misconduct: are targeted to journals with a high impact factor (IF); are written by authors with additional papers withdrawn for misconduct; diffuse responsibility across many (perhaps innocent) co-authors; and are retracted slower than papers retracted for other infractions. These hypotheses were initially tested and confirmed in a database of 788 papers; here we reevaluate these hypotheses in a larger database of 2,047 English-language papers. Journal IF was higher for papers retracted for misconduct (p < 0.0001). Roughly 57% of papers retracted for misconduct were written by a first author with other retracted papers; 21% of erroneous papers were written by authors with >1 retraction (p < 0.0001). Papers flawed by misconduct diffuse responsibility across more authors (p < 0.0001) and are withdrawn more slowly (p < 0.0001) than papers retracted for other reasons. Papers retracted for unknown reasons are unlike papers retracted for misconduct: they are generally published in journals with low IF; by authors with no other retractions; have fewer authors listed; and are retracted quickly. Papers retracted for unknown reasons appear not to represent a deliberate effort to deceive. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

253 KiB

Open AccessArticle

A Case-Control Comparison of Retracted and Non-Retracted Clinical Trials: Can Retraction Be Predicted?

by R. Grant Steen and Robert M. Hamer

Publications 2014, 2(1), 27-37; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2010027 - 27 Jan 2014

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 8027

Abstract

Does scientific misconduct severe enough to result in retraction disclose itself with warning signs? We test a hypothesis that variables in the results section of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are associated with retraction, even without access to raw data. We evaluated all English-language [...] Read more.

Does scientific misconduct severe enough to result in retraction disclose itself with warning signs? We test a hypothesis that variables in the results section of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are associated with retraction, even without access to raw data. We evaluated all English-language RCTs retracted from the PubMed database prior to 2011. Two controls were selected for each case, matching publication journal, volume, issue, and page as closely as possible. Number of authors, subjects enrolled, patients at risk, and patients treated were tallied in cases and controls. Among case RCTs, 17.5% had ≤2 authors, while 6.3% of control RCTs had ≤2 authors. Logistic regression shows that having few authors is associated with retraction (p < 0.03), although the number of subjects enrolled, patients at risk, or treated patients is not. However, none of the variables singly, nor all of the variables combined, can reliably predict retraction, perhaps because retraction is such a rare event. Exploratory analysis suggests that retraction rate varies by medical field (p < 0.001). Although retraction cannot be predicted on the basis of the variables evaluated, concern is warranted when there are few authors, enrolled subjects, patients at risk, or treated patients. Ironically, these features urge caution in evaluating any RCT, since they identify studies that are statistically weaker. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

588 KiB

Open AccessArticle

A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices

by Emma Bilbrey, Natalie O'Dell and Jonathan Creamer

Publications 2014, 2(1), 14-26; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2010014 - 24 Jan 2014

Cited by 26 | Viewed by 10338

Abstract

When a scientific article is found to be either fraudulent or erroneous, one course of action available to both the authors and the publisher is to retract said article. Unfortunately, not all retraction notices properly inform the reader of the problems with a [...] Read more.

When a scientific article is found to be either fraudulent or erroneous, one course of action available to both the authors and the publisher is to retract said article. Unfortunately, not all retraction notices properly inform the reader of the problems with a retracted article. This study developed a novel rubric for rating and standardizing the quality of retraction notices, and used it to assess the retraction notices of 171 retracted articles from 15 journals. Results suggest the rubric to be a robust, if preliminary, tool. Analysis of the retraction notices suggest that their quality has not improved over the last 50 years, that it varies both between and within journals, and that it is dependent on the field of science, the author of the retraction notice, and the reason for retraction. These results indicate a lack of uniformity in the retraction policies of individual journals and throughout the scientific literature. The rubric presented in this study could be adopted by journals to help standardize the writing of retraction notices. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

167 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Combating Fraud in Medical Research: Research Validation Standards Utilized by the Journal of Surgical Radiology

by Bhavin Patel, Anahita Dua, Tom Koenigsberger and Sapan S. Desai

Publications 2013, 1(3), 140-145; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications1030140 - 15 Nov 2013

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 12589

Abstract

Fraud in medical publishing has risen to the national spotlight as manufactured and suspect data have led to retractions of papers in prominent journals. Moral turpitude in medical research has led to the loss of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants, directly affected [...] Read more.

Fraud in medical publishing has risen to the national spotlight as manufactured and suspect data have led to retractions of papers in prominent journals. Moral turpitude in medical research has led to the loss of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants, directly affected patient care, and has led to severe legal ramifications for some authors. While there are multiple checks and balances in medical research to prevent fraud, the final enforcement lies with journal editors and publishers. There is an ethical and legal obligation to make careful and critical examinations of the medical research published in their journals. Failure to follow the highest standards in medical publishing can lead to legal liability and destroy a journal’s integrity. More significant, however, is the protection of the medical profession’s trust with their colleagues and the public they serve. This article discusses various techniques and tools available to editors and publishers that can help curtail fraud in medical publishing. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

Review

Jump to: Research

176 KiB

Open AccessReview

Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes

by Matan Shelomi

Publications 2014, 2(2), 51-60; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications2020051 - 4 Apr 2014

Cited by 16 | Viewed by 12041

Abstract

Though scientific misconduct perpetrated by authors has received much press, little attention has been given to the role of journal editors. This article discusses cases and types of “editorial misconduct”, in which the action or inaction of editorial agents ended in publication of [...] Read more.

Though scientific misconduct perpetrated by authors has received much press, little attention has been given to the role of journal editors. This article discusses cases and types of “editorial misconduct”, in which the action or inaction of editorial agents ended in publication of fraudulent work and/or poor or failed retractions of such works, all of which ultimately harm scientific integrity and the integrity of the journals involved. Rare but existent, editorial misconduct ranges in severity and includes deliberate omission or ignorance of peer review, insufficient guidelines for authors, weak or disingenuous retraction notices, and refusal to retract. The factors responsible for editorial misconduct and the options to address these are discussed. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

185 KiB

Open AccessReview

Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent

by Lutz Bornmann

Publications 2013, 1(3), 87-98; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications1030087 - 11 Oct 2013

Cited by 23 | Viewed by 14969

Abstract

In recent years, the international scientific community has been rocked by a number of serious cases of research misconduct. In one of these, Woo Suk Hwang, a Korean stem cell researcher published two articles on research with ground-breaking results in Science in 2004 [...] Read more.

In recent years, the international scientific community has been rocked by a number of serious cases of research misconduct. In one of these, Woo Suk Hwang, a Korean stem cell researcher published two articles on research with ground-breaking results in Science in 2004 and 2005. Both articles were later revealed to be fakes. This paper provides an overview of what research misconduct is generally understood to be, its manifestations and the extent to which they are thought to exist. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Misconduct in Scientific Publishing

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editor

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (8 papers)

Research

Review

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI