Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors

Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, authors and readers all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing.

Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations.

In 2008, a Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences working group chaired by Professor Emilio Bossi issued a "Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context", together with a paper setting out principles and procedures concerning integrity in scientific research. In the Memorandum, unjustified claims of authorship in scientific publications are referred to as a form of scientific misconduct - a view widely shared in other countries. In the Principles and Procedures, the main criteria for legitimate authorship are specified, as well as the associated responsibilities. It is in fact not uncommon for disputes about authorship to arise with regard to publications in fields where research is generally conducted by teams rather than individuals. Such disputes may concern not only the question who is or is not to be listed as an author but also, frequently, the precise sequence of names, if the list is to reflect the various authors' roles and contributions. Subjective assessments of the contributions made by the individual members of a research group may differ substantially. As scientific collaboration - often across national boundaries - is now increasingly common, ensuring appropriate recognition of all parties is a complex matter and, where disagreements arise, it may not be easy to reach a consensus. In addition, customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting "honorary" authorship to an eminent researcher - formerly not unusual - is no longer considered acceptable. It should be borne in mind that the publications list has become by far the most important indicator of a researcher's scientific performance; for this reason, appropriate authorship credit has become a decisive factor in the careers of young researchers, and it needs to be managed and protected accordingly. At the international and national level, certain practices have therefore developed concerning the listing of authors and the obligations of authorship. The Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences has collated the relevant principles and regulations and formulated recommendations for authorship in scientific publications. These should help to prevent authorship disputes and offer guidance in the event of conflicts.

Folklore, fad, and fashion: The concept of misconduct in science redefined

This study is an analytical investigation of the nature and implications of the current conceptions of scientific misconduct, arguing that the question of what constitutes misconduct in science is significantly more complex than what conventionally has been believed. Complicating the definitions of misconduct are the differences between professional science and non-scientific professions, in their respective norms of what constitutes valid knowledge, and what counts as appropriate and inappropriate practice. While institutionalized science claims that there is clear differentiation between its standards of validity and those of the non-scientific professions, this paper argues that, when it comes to misconduct, the perceived boundaries between the scientific and non-scientific professions are breached; the practice standards that science currently employs in self-policing misconduct have come to resemble the minimal juridical standards of practice that other professions employ. This study attempts, despite erosion of these traditional boundaries, to move from legalistic standards of scientific practice to intramural standards of practice, and in so doing, to hold scientific practice to a higher standard than ordinary public conduct. The result is a clearer understanding of scientific misconduct to aid those individual scientists who are required to make onerous determinations about the appropriateness of specific practices by their peers. ^

Public health and the knowledge industry

Knowledge plays an important role in health care. The production and diffusion of health-related knowledge are increasingly under the control of private commercial interests, which are characterized by conflicts of interests that result in abuses of power. Considerable research has been done on the medical-industrial complex and its role in the production of power imbalances and the consequent abuses, but little attention has been dedicated to the role played by the publishing industry, which can be subject to the same problems. The widely diffused idea that "frequent and major changes" occur in medicine, albeit unsupported by clearcut evidence, is an effective marketing tool for both the pharmaceutical and publishing industries, who feed and thrive on physicians' insecurities. The production and distribution of knowledge should be addressed as a strategic component of public health.

Aspectos éticos de las comunicaciones cientificas

Artículo especial. Este texto está basado en el trabajo final del Master de Bioética y Humanización de la Asistencia realizado en la Escuela de Bioética de San Juan de Dios (Sevilla), Facultad de Teología de Granada, Universidad de Comillas durante los cursos 2006-07 y 2007-08.

Les rétractations et leurs conséquences sur la carrière des coauteurs : analyse bibliométrique des fraudes et des erreurs dans le domaine biomédical

Ces dernières années, la découverte de fraudes scientifiques majeures a créé des ondes de choc dans la communauté scientifique. Le nombre annuel de rétractations a considérablement augmenté, et la plupart sont dues à des cas de fraude. Bien qu’il soit généralement pris pour acquis que tous les coauteurs sont affectés par ces rétractations, l’objectif de cette étude est de vérifier cette présupposition empiriquement. Nous avons recensé toutes les rétractations du domaine biomédical (443) de 1996 à 2006 dans PubMed et mesuré, à l’aide du Web of Science (WOS), la productivité, l’impact et les pratiques de collaboration des coauteurs (1 818) sur une période de cinq ans avant et après la rétractation. Nos résultats montrent que les rétractations ont des conséquences sur la carrière des coauteurs, surtout au niveau du nombre de publications des années subséquentes. Cet impact est plus grand dans les cas de fraude, et pour les premiers auteurs.

Phénomène de biohype dans des articles scientifiques rapportant des résultats issus de recherches cliniques en nutrigénétique/nutrigénomique : caractérisation et perception des chercheurs

Le développement de la nutrigénétique/nutrigénomique (NGx) a suscité de nombreuses attentes puisque les retombées qui lui sont associées s’avèrent potentiellement bénéfiques autant pour les individus en santé que pour les individus malades. De grandes attentes avaient également été associées au Projet de décryptage du Génome Humain (PGH). Aujourd’hui, seules quelques attentes de celles envisagées se sont concrétisées. Le PGH a donc évolué dans un contexte marqué par du biohype, soit la promotion d’attentes exagérées, voir irréalistes. Étant donné l’importance des attentes associées avec le développement de la NGx et des limites méthodologiques auxquelles fait encore face la recherche clinique conduite dans ce domaine, l’objectif principal de cette thèse est de déterminer si les publications scientifiques rapportant des résultats de recherches cliniques effectuées en NGx contribuent à l’émergence d’un phénomène de biohype. Plus spécifiquement, il s’agira également de documenter la perception des chercheurs oeuvrant dans le domaine de la NGx du phénomène de biohype, d’identifier certains facteurs qui pourraient expliquer son émergence dans la littérature scientifique propre à ce domaine et de proposer des pistes d’actions pour limiter les risques associés à ce phénomène. Nous avons tout d’abord procédé à une analyse documentaire d’articles scientifiques rapportant des résultats issus de recherches cliniques en NGx. Celle-ci nous a révélé que plusieurs bénéfices étaient promus dans cette littérature alors même que les limites méthodologiques n’étaient pas d’emblée présentées et discutées. Cette observation nous portait à croire que ces bénéfices étant potentiellement prématurés. Nous avons ensuite voulu valider notre constat auprès des chercheurs œuvrant principalement dans le domaine de la NGx. Cette enquête nous a permis de constater que les chercheurs étaient généralement en accord avec les bénéfices que nous avons recensés dans les articles scientifiques. Toutefois, ils n’envisageaient pas leur concrétisation à moyen terme. Par ailleurs, cette enquête nous a également révélé que les limitations méthodologiques actuellement rencontrées dans la conduite de recherches cliniques soulevaient des doutes quant à la faisabilité des bénéfices promut dans les articles scientifiques. Ces données viennent confirmer notre observation à savoir qu’un phénomène de biohype serait réellement en émergence dans les articles scientifiques rapportant des résultats de recherches cliniques en NGx. Outre des informations concernant les publics ciblés par les chercheurs et les éléments que doivent contenir un article scientifique, cette enquête nous a également aidés à mieux comprendre les avantages associés à la promotion de bénéfices. Selon la majorité des chercheurs interrogés, la promotion de bénéfices dans un article scientifique augmenterait les chances d’un manuscrit d’être publié et favoriserait la continuité du financement du domaine de recherche. Cette activité étant caractérisée par un environnement compétitif, la promotion de bénéfices semble être une avenue à envisager pour se démarquer. Quoique la promotion de bénéfices prématurés ou exagérés ne soit pas considérée comme de l’inconduite scientifique, elle peut causer entre autres un affaiblissement du sentiment de confiance entre le public et les chercheurs et ultimement, contrevenir à la continuité d’une saine activité de recherche. À la lumière de ces données, nous croyons qu’une des stratégies qui permettrait de prévenir l’apparition des risques associés au phénomène de biohype serait de sensibiliser les chercheurs et les éditeurs de journaux scientifiques à ces derniers. Plus particulièrement, nous encourageons l’intégration de lignes directrices portant sur la gestion du biohype dans les codes de conduites qui ont été mis en place pour favoriser les bonnes pratiques en recherche.

Qualidade dos estudos clínicos publicados na RBGO ao longo de uma década (1999-2009): aspectos metodológicos, éticos e procedimentos estatísticos

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a evolução metodológica e do delineamento estatístico nas publicações da Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (RBGO) a partir da resolução 196/96. MÉTODOS: Uma revisão de 133 artigos publicados nos anos de 1999 (65) e 2009 (68) foi realizada por dois revisores independentes com formação em epidemiologia clínica e metodologia da pesquisa científica. Foram incluídos todos os artigos clínicos originais, séries e relatos de casos, sendo excluídos os editoriais, as cartas ao editor, os artigos de revisão sistemática, os trabalhos experimentais, artigos de opinião, além dos resumos de teses e dissertações. Características relacionadas com a qualidade metodológica dos estudos foram analisadas por artigo, por meio de check-list que avaliou dois critérios: aspectos metodológicos e procedimentos estatísticos. Utilizou-se a estatística descritiva e o teste do χ2 para comparação entre os anos. RESULTADOS: Observa-se que houve diferença entre os anos de 1999 e 2009 no tocante ao desenho dos estudos e ao delineamento estatístico, demonstrando maior rigor nos respectivos procedimentos com o uso de testes mais robustos, relativamente, entre os anos de 1999 e 2009. CONCLUSÕES: Na RBGO, observou-se evolução metodológica dos artigos publicados entre os anos de 1999 e 2009 e aprofundamento nas análises estatísticas com o uso de testes mais sofisticados, como o uso mais frequente das análises de regressão e da análise multinível, que são técnicas primordiais na produção do conhecimento e planejamento de intervenções em saúde. Isso pode resultar em menos erros de interpretações.

Retraction

Vareille M, Kieninger E, Alves MP, et al. Impaired type I and type III interferon induction and rhinovirus control in human cystic fibrosis airway epithelial cells. Thorax 2012;67:517-25. This article has been retracted. In our article recently published in Thorax, we described a novel mechanism explaining the increased susceptibility of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) to rhinovirus infections, namely defective interferon type I and III production by CF airway epithelial cells. In experiments performed after publication of the article we were unable to consistently replicate our findings of deficient interferon type I and III production by CF airway epithelial cells upon rhinovirus infection. In the light of these results, we carried out detailed investigations of the data reported in the above manuscript and regrettably found evidence of deliberate manipulation of experimental data by the first author Dr M. Vareille. This manipulation was accompanied in some instances by absence of original data files. The manipulation/original data absence involved data presented in most, if not all of the figures, thus we wish to fully retract the paper and apologise to the readers of Thorax and to the scientific community for the inconvenience this has caused. We also checked data published by our group in manuscripts on which Dr Vareille was a co-author and found that data published in these manuscripts had not been manipulated. These two manuscripts, whose data and conclusions we stand by are: Edwards MR, Regamey N, Vareille M, et al. Impaired innate interferon induction in severe therapy resistant atopic asthmatic children. Mucosal Immunol 2013;6:797–806. doi: 10.1038/mi.2012.118. and Kieninger E, Vareille M, Kopf BS, et al. Lack of an exaggerated inflammatory response on virus infection in cystic fibrosis. Eur Respir J 2012;39:297–304. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00054511. Dr. Vareille has received a letter from the Secretary General of the University of Bern condemning her scientific misconduct as a severe offence against the rules of scientific integrity. Her current employers have also been informed. All co-authors of the publication including Dr. Vareille concur with the retraction statement.

La política editorial antifraude de las revistas científicas españolas e iberoamericanas del JCR en Ciencias Sociales

El proceso de publicación de un artículo debe basarse en la credibilidad, la verdad y la autenticidad. La inclusión de normas éticas en la política editorial científica se concibe como una medida preventiva y disuasoria de conductas inapropiadas. Dada la escasez de estudios sobre ética y publicación científica en Ciencias Sociales y, en particular, en España e Iberoamérica, esta investigación analiza la política editorial antifraude de las revistas españolas y latinoamericanas indexadas en el JCR en Ciencias Sociales (2014). Para cumplir nuestro objetivo, se utilizaron como muestra objeto de estudio 104 revistas y en las instrucciones a autores se examinaron una serie de principios de actuación ética: 1) Derechos de las personas que participan en la investigación; 2) Protección del bienestar de los animales objeto de experimentación; 3) Conflicto de interés; 4) Envío y publicación de manuscritos. Nuestros resultados apuntan que el carácter inédito de la investigación, así como la prohibición del envío simultáneo de los trabajos a otras revistas son los temas que aparecen con más frecuencia. Pese al intento de sociedades de edición científica como ICMJE y COPE por estandarizar los asuntos que afectan al fraude en la ciencia, su incidencia es exigua en las publicaciones objeto de estudio. Dada la dispersión normativa analizada, se retoma la necesidad detectada por otros autores de desarrollar un código ético uniforme para las disciplinas de Ciencias Sociales.

A case study approach to estimating the burden of research misconduct in publicly funded medical research

The economic impact of research misconduct in medical research has been unexplored. While research misconduct in publicly funded medical research has increasingly been the object of discussion, public policy debate, government and institutional action, and scientific research, the costs of research misconduct have been unexamined. The author develops a model to estimate the per case cost of research misconduct, specifically the costs of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, in publicly funded medical research. Using the database of Research Misconduct Findings maintained by the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, the model is used to estimate costs of research misconduct in public funded medical research among faculty during the period 2000-2005.^

A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of reports of clinical trials published in six Brazilian dental journals indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO)

INTRODUCTION: Open access publishing is becoming increasingly popular within the biomedical sciences. SciELO, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, is a digital library covering a selected collection of Brazilian scientific journals many of which provide open access to full-text articles.This library includes a number of dental journals some of which may include reports of clinical trials in English, Portuguese and/or Spanish. Thus, SciELO could play an important role as a source of evidence for dental healthcare interventions especially if it yields a sizeable number of high quality reports. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify reports of clinical trials by handsearching of dental journals that are accessible through SciELO, and to assess the overall quality of these reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic versions of six Brazilian dental Journals indexed in SciELO were handsearched at www.scielo.br in September 2008. Reports of clinical trials were identified and classified as controlled clinical trials (CCTs - prospective, experimental studies comparing 2 or more healthcare interventions in human beings) or randomized controlled trials (RCTs - a random allocation method is clearly reported), according to Cochrane eligibility criteria. CRITERIA TO ASSESS METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY INCLUDED: method of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinded outcome assessment, handling of withdrawals and losses and whether an intention-to-treat analysis had been carried out. RESULTS: The search retrieved 33 CCTs and 43 RCTs. A majority of the reports provided no description of either the method of randomization (75.3%) or concealment of the allocation sequence (84.2%). Participants and outcome assessors were reported as blinded in only 31.2% of the reports. Withdrawals and losses were only clearly described in 6.5% of the reports and none mentioned an intention-to-treat analysis or any similar procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that a substantial number of reports of trials and systematic reviews are available in the dental journals listed in SciELO, and that these could provide valuable evidence for clinical decision making. However, it is clear that the quality of a number of these reports is of some concern and that improvement in the conduct and reporting of these trials could be achieved if authors adhered to internationally accepted guidelines, e.g. the CONSORT statement.

Innovation and entrepreneurship in scientific research

This research wants to lay emphasis on topics that historicize and rescue concepts, in addition, shows the relation between innovation and socioeconomic development resulted; reviews the legal framework to stimulate new innovation into Brazilian society; considers the definition and the entrepreneur university's new paradigm; and finally, this research highlights the importance of teaching entrepreneur at universities, with straight society benefits. The results suggests that innovation is directly enrolled with a successful development of certain society, as well, is actually the biggest business competitive differential into corporative universe. In one way of getting results of social advancement to inform entrepreneur research practice, it appears that entrepreneurs concepts, necessarily, must be incorporated into the array of Science/Technology/Innovation for the effective development of supported formula. This article develops a thought about actual scientific researches paradigm, the way that is built on today, and if it's sufficient to effectively get the results that society expects from main bodies to create human resource and researches, especially those with innovation aspects, at Brazilian economic improvement.

Pitfalls of artificial grouping and stratification of scientific journals based on their Impact Factor: a case study in Brazilian Zoology

The present contribution explores the impact of the QUALIS metric system for academic evaluation implemented by CAPES (Coordination for the Development of Personnel in Higher Education) upon Brazilian Zoological research. The QUALIS system is based on the grouping and ranking of scientific journals according to their Impact Factor (IF). We examined two main points implied by this system, namely: 1) its reliability as a guideline for authors; 2) if Zoology possesses the same publication profile as Botany and Oceanography, three fields of knowledge grouped by CAPES under the subarea "BOZ" for purposes of evaluation. Additionally, we tested CAPES' recent suggestion that the area of Ecology would represent a fourth field of research compatible with the former three. Our results indicate that this system of classification is inappropriate as a guideline for publication improvement, with approximately one third of the journals changing their strata between years. We also demonstrate that the citation profile of Zoology is distinct from those of Botany and Oceanography. Finally, we show that Ecology shows an IF that is significantly different from those of Botany, Oceanography, and Zoology, and that grouping these fields together would be particularly detrimental to Zoology. We conclude that the use of only one parameter of analysis for the stratification of journals, i.e., the Impact Factor calculated for a comparatively small number of journals, fails to evaluate with accuracy the pattern of publication present in Zoology, Botany, and Oceanography. While such simplified procedure might appeals to our sense of objectivity, it dismisses any real attempt to evaluate with clarity the merit embedded in at least three very distinct aspects of scientific practice, namely: productivity, quality, and specificity.