Locating patterns in the de Bruijn torus

Victoria Horan,B. Stevens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2015.11.015

IF: 0.961

2015-05-15

Discrete Mathematics

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals

Cristina Candal-Pedreira,Joseph S Ross,Ana Marušić,Alberto Ruano-Ravina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2023-220554

2023-12-08

Abstract:Research misconduct refers to a set of unethical practices in research and publication and is the main reason for retraction of articles published in the academic literature. Research misconduct has negative consequences and has generated public scepticism about research, which has led to increasing distrust in science. In this context, a joint effort by the scientific community, academic institutions, scientific journals and research funders is needed to identify and prevent research misconduct. In this paper, we will evaluate what has already been done and what is needed to do to better address research misconduct. The focus of this paper will be on the actions taken by academic institutions, as the first line of defence, and scientific journals, as the gatekeepers of science. However, scientific journals and academic institutions are only a part of a much larger and multistakeholder effort needed to address the challenges scientific research is facing.
Rooting out scientific misconduct

Ivan Oransky,Barbara Redman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn9352

IF: 56.9

2024-01-12

Science

Abstract:Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue. Fake data promote ineffective or even dangerous treatments, for example, and thwart the discovery of real solutions for society. In the United States, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is tasked with rooting out misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Last October, ORI proposed changes to how it functions. The agency's recommendations—the first since 2005—have evoked mixed reactions, but the real problem is that ORI is underfunded and lacks the resources and authority needed to make a difference. Unless its charter is revised by Congress, the ORI can sadly do little more than tinker at the edges of scientific fraud.

multidisciplinary sciences
Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

Daniele Fanelli,Rodrigo Costas,Vincent Larivière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556

IF: 3.7

2015-06-17

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher's career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

multidisciplinary sciences
Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct

Molly Kearney,Maren Downing,Elizabeth A. Gignac

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0211

2024-02-27

Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Context This narrative review article explores research integrity and the implications of scholarly work in medical education. The paper describes how the current landscape of medical education emphasizes research and scholarly activity for medical students, resident physicians, and faculty physician educators. There is a gap in the existing literature that fully explores research integrity, the challenges surrounding the significant pressure to perform scholarly activity, and the potential for ethical lapses by those involved in medical education. Objectives The objectives of this review article are to provide a background on authorship and publication safeguards, outline common types of research misconduct, describe the implications of publication in medical education, discuss the consequences of ethical breaches, and outline possible solutions to promote research integrity in academic medicine. Methods To complete this narrative review, the authors explored the current literature utilizing multiple databases beginning in June of 2021, and they completed the literature review in January of 2023. To capture the wide scope of the review, numerous searches were performed. A number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were utilized to identify relevant articles. The MeSH terms included “scientific misconduct,” “research misconduct,” “authorship,” “plagiarism,” “biomedical research/ethics,” “faculty, medical,” “fellowships and scholarships,” and “internship and residency.” Additional references were accessed to include medical school and residency accreditation standards, residency match statistics, regulatory guidelines, and standard definitions. Results Within the realm of academic medicine, research misconduct and misrepresentation continue to occur without clear solutions. There is a wide range of severity in breaches of research integrity, ranging from minor infractions to fraud. Throughout the medical education system in the United States, there is pressure to publish research and scholarly work. Higher rates of publications are associated with a successful residency match for students and academic promotion for faculty physicians. For those who participate in research misconduct, there is a multitude of potential adverse consequences. Potential solutions to ensure research integrity exist but are not without barriers to implementation. Conclusions Pressure in the world of academic medicine to publish contributes to the potential for research misconduct and authorship misrepresentation. Lapses in research integrity can result in a wide range of potentially adverse consequences for the offender, their institution, the scientific community, and the public. If adopted, universal research integrity policies and procedures could make major strides in eliminating research misconduct in the realm of academic medicine.
Methylphenidate in hyperactive boys with comorbid tic disorder. I. Clinic evaluations.

J. Sverd,K. Gadow,Nolan Ee,J. Sprafkin,Ezor Sn

Abstract:
Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Alonzo Alfaro-Núñez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3

Abstract:Background: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. Main body: While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years. Conclusion: There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times.
Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case

Harold C. Sox,Drummond Rennie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123

IF: 39.2

2006-04-18

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The scientific literature is a record of the search for truth. Publication of faked data diverts this search. The scientific community has a duty to warn people to ignore an article containing faked data and must try to prevent inadvertent citation of it. The scientific community accomplishes these tasks by publishing a retraction and linking it to the fraudulent article's citation in electronic indexes of the medical literature, such as PubMed. This mechanism is far from perfect, as shown by a case history of scientific fraud perpetrated by Eric Poehlman, PhD. His institution notified 3 journals that they had published tainted articles. Two journals failed to retract. The third journal retracted immediately, but other authors continued to cite the retracted article. Another duty of the scientific community is to verify the integrity of other articles published by the author of a fraudulent article. This task falls to the author's institution and requires coauthors to vouch for their article's integrity by convincing institutional investigators that the suspect author could not have altered the raw scientific data from their study. Two universities are currently investigating Poehlman's published research. Maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature requires governmental institutions that have the authority to investigate and punish guilty scientists and requires that research institutions investigate alleged fraud. It requires journal editors to issue a retraction when they learn that their journal has published a tainted article. It requires research institutions to accept their responsibility to investigate every article published by a scientist who has published even 1 fraudulent article. Finally, it requires authors to take pains to avoid citing retracted articles and to issue a correction when they inadvertently cite a retracted article.

medicine, general & internal
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

Daniele Fanelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

IF: 3.7

2009-05-29

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, "cooking" of data, etc... Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86-4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once--a serious form of misconduct by any standard--and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words "falsification" or "fabrication", and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

multidisciplinary sciences
Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

Eduardo Garcia-Garzon,Ariadna Angulo-Brunet,Oscar Lecuona,Juan Ramón Barrada,Guido Corradi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6

IF: 2.8

2022-02-28

Current Psychology

Abstract:Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers’ research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others’ colleagues’ research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs’ definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Scientific fraud: attack on the credibility of science

Lisset Urquiza Portilla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56294/mw202334

2023-12-31

Abstract:Introduction: When referring to the term fraud in scientific research, 3 fundamental modalities of this can be defined that are consistent with the search for studies that are not easily rejected: manipulating data, plagiarism and the creation of non-existent data.Objective: To describe factors that allow the detection of scientific fraud in research.Methods: A review of the literature was carried out in the month of December 2023 through access to the databases Scopus, PubMed, Dialnet, Scielo, and the search engine Google Scholar version 2022, with the strategies: ((fraud ) AND (scientific writing)), ((science) AND (plagiarism)) and ((medicine) AND (artificial intelligence) AND (scientific fraud) AND (plagiarism) AND (data invention)) and their translations into the English language , limited the search to the last 5 years –from 2019 to 2023–.Results: Together with the problem of predatory magazines, the terminology of hijacked magazines has emerged, it is nothing more than that which takes articles, steals names of editors, evaluators or proofreaders, and through its use, sells them to different websites. scientific studies for publication. In real and practical life this phenomenon occurs due to economic motivation.Conclusions: Fraud in the world of scientific communication ranges from the authors to the editorial committees of the journals, which is why both groups must be educated in 2 fundamental factors, not committing fraud and knowing how to detect it, in order to increase in terms of credibility of current science.
Research misconduct: definitions, manifestations and extent

Lutz Bornmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1309.7747

2013-09-30

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 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.

Computers and Society,Digital Libraries
Decontamination of the scientific literature

Guillaume Cabanac

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.15912

2022-10-28

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Research misconduct and frauds pollute the scientific literature. Honest errors and malevolent data fabrication, image manipulation, journal hijacking, and plagiarism passed peer review unnoticed. Problematic papers deceive readers, authors citing them, and AI-powered literature-based discovery. Flagship publishers accepted hundreds flawed papers despite claiming to enforce peer review. This application ambitions to decontaminate the scientific literature using curative and preventive actions.
Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

Ramón A. Feenstra,Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w

IF: 3.777

2021-01-25

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Zhang Qin,Fu Hui-Zhen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04252-y

IF: 3.801

2022-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:Problematic publications and scientific misconduct have raised global concern, in which the authors have played a key role. Since research misconduct occurs more frequently in the clinical medicine field, we took this field as an example to explore productivity patterns, collaboration, and scientific careers of authors at the individual level. The application of Lotka's law (C = 0.883, n = 3.597) showed a loose collaboration network and a predominant aggregation of authors with multiple retracted publications. Most authors were retracted only once while a small group of authors had most retracted publications. Authors with most retractions appeared to have stable collaboration with certain individuals. The occurrences of falsification and ethical issues increased with the higher involvement of authors with multiple retracted publications. Two typical publication patterns of retractions in different stages of scientific career have been found: (1) committing scientific misconduct in the early career, mainly for promotion, and (2) participating in scientific misconduct when mature in the career, most due to neglecting the duty as a supervisor. The team culture, regulations, publication policies, and joint efforts by the scientific community have a direct influence on the occurrences of scientific misconduct. Conclusions are made with a focus on the need for more actions to prevent scientific misconduct and to strengthen scientific norms and integrity.
Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yu Xie,Kai Wang,Yan Kong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9

IF: 3.777

2021-06-29

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:Irresponsible research practices damaging the value of science has been an increasing concern among researchers, but previous work failed to estimate the prevalence of all forms of irresponsible research behavior. Additionally, these analyses have not included articles published in the last decade from 2011 to 2020. This meta-analysis provides an updated meta-analysis that calculates the pooled estimates of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRPs), and explores the factors associated with the prevalence of these issues. The estimates, committing RM concern at least 1 of FFP (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism) and (unspecified) QRPs concern 1 or more QRPs, were 2.9% (95% CI 2.1–3.8%) and 12.5% (95% CI 10.5–14.7%), respectively. In addition, 15.5% (95% CI 12.4–19.2%) of researchers witnessed others who had committed at least 1 RM, while 39.7% (95% CI 35.6–44.0%) were aware of others who had used at least 1 QRP. The results document that response proportion, limited recall period, career level, disciplinary background and locations all affect significantly the prevalence of these issues. This meta-analysis addresses a gap in existing meta-analyses and estimates the prevalence of all forms of RM and QRPs, thus providing a better understanding of irresponsible research behaviors.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

Jorge Vasconez-Gonzalez,Juan S. Izquierdo-Condoy,Patricio Naranjo-Lara,Miguel Ángel Garcia-Bereguiain,Esteban Ortiz-Prado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424

IF: 3.9

2024-07-17

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the “publish or perish” culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of “paper mills,” and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

medicine, general & internal
Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

Anna Catharina V. Armond,Kelly D. Cobey,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111367

IF: 7.407

2024-04-20

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability, and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past two decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
Two Decades of Scientific Misconduct in India: Retraction Reasons and Journal Quality among Inter-country and Intra-country Institutional Collaboration

Kiran Sharma

2024-03-29

Abstract:Research stands as a pivotal factor in propelling the progress of any nation forward. However, if tainted by misconduct, it poses a significant threat to the nation's development. This study aims to scrutinize various cases of deliberate scientific misconduct by Indian researchers. A comprehensive analysis was conducted on 3,244 retracted publications sourced from the Retraction Watch database. The upward trend in retractions is alarming, although the decreasing duration of retractions indicates proactive measures by journals against misconduct. Approximately 60% of retractions stem from private institutions, with fake peer reviews identified as the primary cause of misconduct. This trend could be attributed to incentivizing publication quantity over quality in private institutions, potentially fostering unfair publishing practices. Retractions due to data integrity issues are predominantly observed in public and medical institutions, while retractions due to plagiarism occur in conference proceedings and non-Scopus-indexed journals. Examining retractions resulting from institutional collaborations reveals that 80% originate from within the country, with the remaining 20% being international collaborations. Among inter-country collaborations, one-third of retractions come from the top two journal quartiles, whereas, in intra-country collaborations, half of the retractions stem from Q1 and Q2 journals. Clinical studies retracted from intra-country collaborations are mostly from Q3 and Q4 journals, whereas in inter-country collaborations, they primarily come from Q1 journals. Regarding top journals by the number of retractions in intra-country collaborations, they belong to the Q2 and Q4 categories, whereas in inter-country collaborations, they are in Q1.

Digital Libraries
Star light, star bright, first molecule I see tonight.

C. Yip

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2014.01.009

IF: 3.4

2014-03-04

Biophysical Journal

Abstract:
A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

Anna Catharina Vieira Armond,Bert Gordijn,Jonathan Lewis,Mohammad Hosseini,János Kristóf Bodnár,Soren Holm,Péter Kakuk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8

2021-04-30

Abstract:Background: The areas of Research Ethics (RE) and Research Integrity (RI) are rapidly evolving. Cases of research misconduct, other transgressions related to RE and RI, and forms of ethically questionable behaviors have been frequently published. The objective of this scoping review was to collect RE and RI cases, analyze their main characteristics, and discuss how these cases are represented in the scientific literature. Methods: The search included cases involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without language or date restriction. Data relating to the articles and the cases were extracted from case descriptions. Results: A total of 14,719 records were identified, and 388 items were included in the qualitative synthesis. The papers contained 500 case descriptions. After applying the eligibility criteria, 238 cases were included in the analysis. In the case analysis, fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%), followed by patient safety issues (11.1%) and plagiarism (6.9%). 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities. Paper retraction was the most prevalent sanction (45.4%), followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%). Conclusions: Case descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields compared to its proportion in scientific publications. The cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of misbehaviors. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations, and from recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

Locating patterns in the de Bruijn torus

Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals

Rooting out scientific misconduct

Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct

Methylphenidate in hyperactive boys with comorbid tic disorder. I. Clinic evaluations.

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

Scientific fraud: attack on the credibility of science

Research misconduct: definitions, manifestations and extent

Decontamination of the scientific literature

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

Two Decades of Scientific Misconduct in India: Retraction Reasons and Journal Quality among Inter-country and Intra-country Institutional Collaboration

Star light, star bright, first molecule I see tonight.

A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases