Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn't — lessons from a superconductivity lab

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01174-6

IF: 64.8

2024-04-25

Nature

Abstract:Journals, funders and institutions that employ researchers all want to produce or disseminate rigorous scientific knowledge — and all can learn lessons from misconduct cases. Journals, funders and institutions that employ researchers all want to produce or disseminate rigorous scientific knowledge — and all can learn lessons from misconduct cases.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper attempts to explore what lessons the scientific community can learn from these research misconducts after several studies on room - temperature superconducting materials were retracted. Specifically, the paper discusses the following points:

1. What can **journal editors, funding agencies, and the institutions where researchers are based** learn from these cases?
- The paper emphasizes that these relevant parties have a common goal, namely, to produce and report rigorous research of the highest standard. Therefore, they need to learn some lessons collectively, especially in terms of information exchange.

2. Why did the journal "Nature" publish the second paper even though there were doubts about the first paper?
- The paper points out that the editorial policy of "Nature" is to independently evaluate each submitted manuscript. In addition, the purpose of peer review is not to identify potential misconduct, but to ensure the quality and accuracy of the research.

3. Why didn't the retraction notice clearly state that there was misconduct?
- The paper explains that the role of the journal is to correct the scientific literature after discovering misconduct, and the responsibility for determining whether there is misconduct lies with the relevant institutions, which need to make a decision after completing due process.

4. How can the communication between journals and institutions be improved?
- The paper mentions that the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has recently updated its guidelines, suggesting that there should be better communication between journals and institutions. These suggestions include that the investigation of integrity or misconduct should be carried out by institutions rather than publishers, because investigators need to access the original evidence.

5. How can data sharing be promoted?
- The paper emphasizes that access to the original data is crucial for resolving potential cases of misconduct. "Nature" requires certain types of data to be deposited in external databases before publication, but the research community still needs to take more measures to encourage data sharing.

6. How can these cases be processed more quickly?
- The paper proposes whether the processing speed can be accelerated through better communication. The editors of "Nature" are also reflecting on whether there can be more or better communication between journals and institutions when evidence of potential misconduct emerges.

In conclusion, this paper aims to explore how the scientific community can improve the mechanisms for reporting, investigating, and communicating about misconduct through analyzing these specific cases, in order to maintain the integrity and transparency of scientific research.