Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
102,599
result(s) for
"Misconduct"
Sort by:
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands
Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity.
Journal Article
Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review
To give an overview of the available methods to investigate research misconduct in health-related research.
In this scoping review, we conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and The Virtual Health Library portal up to July 2020. We included papers that mentioned and/or described methods for screening or assessing research misconduct in health-related research. We categorized identified methods into the following four groups according to their scopes: overall concern, textual concern, image concern, and data concern.
We included 57 papers reporting on 27 methods: two on overall concern, four on textual concern, three on image concern, and 18 on data concern. Apart from the methods to locate textual plagiarism and image manipulation, all other methods, be it theoretical or empirical, are based on examples, are not standardized, and lack formal validation.
Existing methods cover a wide range of issues regarding research misconduct. Although measures to counteract textual plagiarism are well implemented, tools to investigate other forms of research misconduct are rudimentary and labour-intensive. To cope with the rising challenge of research misconduct, further development of automatic tools and routine validation of these methods is needed.
Center for Open Science (OSF) (https://osf.io/mq89w).
Journal Article
Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications
The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately$58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $ 392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.
Journal Article
Unreliable : bias, fraud, and the reproducibility crisis in biomedical research
\"Scientists specializing in the in-depth analysis of the published scientific literature have to the conclusion that a large part of the scientific literature covers results that cannot be replicated in other independent laboratories. Scientists take this to mean that the results are unreliable or untrue. In this book, biomedical researcher Csaba Szabo summarizes the causes and consequences of this so-called \"reproducibility crisis\" in biomedical research. The range of causes is wide, from the specificities of the methods used, through various pitfalls in the design of experiments and analysis of experimental data (e.g., confirmation bias), plagiarism and deliberate data falsification, to the systematic publication of fictitious experiments that have never been performed. Through a few blatant examples - e.g. Anil Potti (Duke University); Piero Anversa (Harvard University) - Szabo describes the damaging impact that blatant fraud can have on the development of an entire field of science, and introduces some of the maverick \"science investigators\" - often working in anonymity - who devote their lives to tracking down and exposing scientific fraudsters. The book also answers the questions (a) what individual and systemic factors are involved in allowing these phenomena to occur, (b) why the appropriate steps have not been taken to control them, and (c) what the implications of the crisis are for the future of medicine and, within it, for the development of new drugs\"-- Provided by publisher.
BOOK
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ~10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
Journal Article
Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country
This study examines disparities in research retractions due to misconduct, identifying countries with the highest retraction counts and those disproportionately represented relative to population and publication output. The findings emphasize the need for improved research integrity measures.
Journal Article