scholarly journals SYSTEMATIZATION OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY BY REGULATORY BODIES AND UNIVERSITIES IN AFRICA: RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Lillian Omutoko
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Holistic Model ◽  
Multiple Submission ◽  
Existing Structures ◽  
Institutional Model

Purpose: Research misconduct is a global ethical concern that imparts negatively on scientific processes and expectations. Other related ethical concerns are academic fraud among researchers in academic institutions.  These activities are against the norms of research and academic practice. Some common occurrences in institutions are multiple submission of papers for publication, use of unauthorized assistance or various forms of dishonesty that occur in relation to any academic exercise. Research integrity is a complex multifaceted task that touches on different phases of research. Institutions in Africa barely have policies and structures to uphold research integrity and where they exist, the enforcement mechanisms are not synchronized. Prevention of research misconduct and enforcement of research integrity policies cannot be the responsibility of any single person or institution, it can only be successful if it is a concerted effort. Universities, national bodies and research ethics committees have a major role to play in maintaining research integrity. The purpose of this paper is to explore and develop a systematic approach to enhance research integrity.  The paper examines common research integrity issues and proposes pragmatic approaches for preventing research misconduct.   Methodology: The methodology employed was desktop document analysis of related journal articles, guidelines and institutional websites.   Case studies of misconduct were reviewed to make sense of types of scientific misconduct that have been recorded in Africa. Results: Institutions can customize the institutional model according to identified needs and existing structures. The proposed framework would be successful if the efforts are implemented within a multi-thronged approach that includes mentorship and capacity building at all levels for creation of an ethical research culture that enhances credibility of research and builds public trust.   Contributions to theory, policy and practice:  It is envisaged that the proposed model will improve enforcement of related policies and promote research integrity. A holistic model to streamline prevention of misconduct and nurture a culture of ethical conduct in research is also recommended. 

scholarly journals Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society

2020 ◽  
pp. 135910532096354
Author(s):  
Russell Craig ◽  
Anthony Pelosi ◽  
Dennis Tourish
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Institutional Logics ◽  
British Psychological Society ◽  
Prevention And Treatment ◽  
Formal Complaint

A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society’s decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.

scholarly journals Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct

mBio ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferric C. Fang ◽  
Joan W. Bennett ◽  
Arturo Casadevall
Keyword(s):  
Life Science ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Career Stage ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
And Gender

ABSTRACT A review of the United States Office of Research Integrity annual reports identified 228 individuals who have committed misconduct, of which 94% involved fraud. Analysis of the data by career stage and gender revealed that misconduct occurred across the entire career spectrum from trainee to senior scientist and that two-thirds of the individuals found to have committed misconduct were male. This exceeds the overall proportion of males among life science trainees and faculty. These observations underscore the need for additional efforts to understand scientific misconduct and to ensure the responsible conduct of research. IMPORTANCE As many of humanity’s greatest problems require scientific solutions, it is critical for the scientific enterprise to function optimally. Misconduct threatens the scientific enterprise by undermining trust in the validity of scientific findings. We have examined specific demographic characteristics of individuals found to have committed research misconduct in the life sciences. Our finding that misconduct occurs across all stages of career development suggests that attention to ethical aspects of the conduct of science should not be limited to those in training. The observation that males are overrepresented among those who commit misconduct implies a gender difference that needs to be better understood in any effort to promote research integrity.

scholarly journals Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 734-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Dal-Ré ◽  
Carmen Ayuso
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Medical Genetics ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Retraction Notice ◽  
Reduced Time

IntroductionBetween 0.02% and 0.04% of articles are retracted. We aim to: (a) describe the reasons for retraction of genetics articles and the time elapsed between the publication of an article and that of the retraction notice because of research misconduct (ie, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism); and (b) compare all these variables between retracted medical genetics (MG) and non-medical genetics (NMG) articles.MethodsAll retracted genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification, plagiarism, duplication, unreliability, and authorship issues. Articles subject to investigation by company/institution, journal, US Office for Research Integrity or third party were also retrieved.Results1582 retracted genetics articles (MG, n=690; NMG, n=892) were identified . Research misconduct and duplication were involved in 33% and 24% of retracted papers, respectively; 37% were subject to investigation. Only 0.8% of articles involved both fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. In this century the incidence of both plagiarism and duplication increased statistically significantly in genetics retracted articles; conversely, fabrication/falsification was significantly reduced. Time to retraction due to scientific misconduct was statistically significantly shorter in the period 2006–2018 compared with 1970–2000. Fabrication/falsification was statistically significantly more common in NMG (28%) than in MG (19%) articles. MG articles were significantly more frequently investigated (45%) than NMG articles (31%). Time to retraction of articles due to fabrication/falsification was significantly shorter for MG (mean 4.7 years) than for NMG (mean 6.4 years) articles; no differences for plagiarism (mean 2.3 years) were found. The USA (mainly NMG articles) and China (mainly MG articles) accounted for the largest number of retracted articles.ConclusionGenetics is a discipline with a high article retraction rate (estimated retraction rate 0.15%). Fabrication/falsification and plagiarism were almost mutually exclusive reasons for article retraction. Retracted MG articles were more frequently subject to investigation than NMG articles. Retracted articles due to fabrication/falsification required 2.0–2.8 times longer to retract than when plagiarism was involved.

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Culture ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups. Conclusions Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers’ compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. Study registration https://osf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) — A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTBackgroundResearch misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works provide the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.MethodsTo capture some of the forgotten voices, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.ResultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the quality and integrity of science. We first discovered that perspectives on misconduct, including the core reasons for condemning misconduct, differed between individuals and actor groups. Beyond misconduct, interviewees also identified numerous problems which affect the integrity of research. Issues related to personalities and attitudes, lack of knowledge of good practices, and research climate were mentioned. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research cultures and research environments. Even though everyone agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, no one felt responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.ConclusionsOur findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, we must tackle how research is assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science should be revisited: not only should they directly address the impact of climates on research practices, but they should also redefine their objective to empower and support researchers rather than to capitalize on their compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making are crucial to building joint objectives for change.Trial registrationosf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals A Legal Evaluation of the Legislation Regarding Scientific Research and Publishing Ethics Committees in the Fields of Social and Humanatirian Sciences and Educational Sciences in Universities: A Qualitative Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-280
Author(s):  
murat bülbül
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
State Universities ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Higher Education Law ◽  
Phenomenological Studies ◽  
Educational Sciences ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Document Review

In Article 65 of Higher Education Law numbered 2547, formation, duties and operations of scientific research and publication ethics boards have to be regulated by regulations issued by Higher Education Council (HEC). Despite this legal obligation, ethical committees in higher education institutions are not regulated by regulation; They are regulated by HEC Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive (HECSRPED) issued in 2016. Universities also make regulations regarding these boards within their own bodies with directives issued by decisions of their senates. In the research, firstly, the literature on the ethics committees and relevant legislation are examined. Then, categories are determined by using the document review method, considering regulations of ethics committees in HECSRPED; in the context of these categories, directives issued by 3 state universities in İstanbul regarding ethics committees in fields of social and humanities and educational sciences are analyzed. Findings show that provisions of a directive issued by universities on ethics committees generally do not coincide with relevant provisions in HECSRPED and even contain significant contradictions. It has also been discussed that ethical committees in universities may harm the principle of conducting scientific research freely and cause important bureaucratic problems and workload for both researchers and board members. It has been suggested that issues related to ethical committees are regulated by HEC, eliminating illegality in directives issued by universities and that universities can issue directives on issues that are not clarified in HECSRPED. In addition, it was recommended to conduct case studies and phenomenological studies regarding ethics committees for researchers.

scholarly journals Peer Review in Law Journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Elías Sanz-Casado ◽  
Tommaso Agnoloni ◽  
Ginevra Peruginelli
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Chi Square

The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer’s competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as “Peer review ethics”, “Reviewer”, “Transparency of identities”, “Publication type”, and “Research misconduct”. Spanish journals favor reviewers’ “Independence” and “Competence” and “Anonymized” peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document