Peru moves to crack down on fraud in research publishing

María de Los Ángeles Orfila,María de los Ángeles Orfila

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn8382

IF: 56.9

2024-01-05

Science

Abstract:Two new laws would make it easier to punish scientists who buy authorship and commit other misdeeds

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Awareness of predatory publishing for Peruvian university professors and lecturers doing research

Carlos Sotomayor-Beltran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1775592

Abstract:Predatory open access journals and predatory conferences' main purpose is to make profit rather than promoting good science. In Peru, the University Law 30220 asks that professors and lecturers undertake research duties at universities. Hence, nowadays part of this academic staff is required to write scientific articles. However, not all of them are experienced on how to write a scholarly paper. Thus, in the rush to comply with the publication requirements that their individual institutions demand from them, a great number of these professors and lecturers are likely to fall prey of predatory publishing, which already is happening in other developing nations. This publishing method is not only unethical because it produces low-quality articles but also is an egregious mismanagement of the resources that universities allocate to fund research. Moreover, the time and effort that the academic staff put to the production of low-quality papers also completely go to waste. Professors and lecturers who follow these bad practices should be penalized; this also avoids the emergence of fraudulent research authorities. Thus, vice-rectorates for research in Peruvian universities should take corrective or preventive measures to promote the production of high-quality papers by part of their academic staff.
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
[Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity]

María Francisca Abad-García

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.11.003

Abstract:This article presents an analysis of the concept of plagiarism in order to show the wide spectrum of manifestations that can be considered as such when committing a transgression of intellectual property, carried out with the intention of deceiving the authors' true contribution and the originality and novelty of the information. The article describes the concurrent circumstances in intentional plagiarism, and the damage that this misconduct causes in the credibility of the scientific system, in which authorship credit is the foundation of the academic career, of the prestige of the author in the scientific community, and the basis for research funding. Some circumstances are favouring this fraud: the pressure exerted on researchers by the criteria used for promotion and reward that prioritise the quantity of works on their quality, the existence of a market for the purchase and sale of scientific articles, and the proliferation of predatory journals that operate without or minimal ethical standards. Finally, the paper highlights the convenience of the adoption of criteria that prioritise the intrinsic quality of the work versus its quantity, including the active involvement of the institutions in the development of active policies for the prevention, detection, and punishment of the cases of potential fraud, and emphasize that, in the end, the prevention of fraud relies on the individual adoption of an ethical and responsible behaviour.
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, 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
Spanish rector accused of inflating citation count

Cathleen O'Grady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt5689

IF: 56.9

2024-10-05

Science

Abstract:Dozens of Springer Nature papers flagged for excessively citing Juan Manuel Corchado

multidisciplinary sciences
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.
[Scientific misconduct: A major threat for medical research]

F Barde,N Peiffer-Smadja,A de La Blanchardière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revmed.2020.02.004

Abstract:Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) and detrimental research practices (selective reporting of data, inappropriate citation practice, ghostwriting) are admitted respectively by 2 % and 33 % of researchers. The consequences of scientific misconduct and detrimental research practices are disastrous, both for the doctors, who are the most affected researchers in view of the number of retracted articles, and for the patients, victims of false information that may have health consequences. In order to fight against the causes (promotion of doctors and allocation of resources to clinical wards and laboratories on purely quantitative research criteria, lack of training in scientific integrity in medical studies, heterogenous quality of reviewing, legal impunity), there are legislative, academic, technological and editorial solutions, but radical and urgent cultural change is needed first.
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
Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Kyle Siler,Philippe Vincent-Lamarre,Cassidy R. Sugimoto,Vincent Larivière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02906-8

IF: 64.8

2021-10-26

Nature

Abstract:To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings.

multidisciplinary sciences
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 Investigations in China's Science Funding System

Li Tang,Linan Wang,Guangyuan Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00459-9

2023-11-22

Abstract:As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.
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
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
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
Improving Systems to Promote Research Integrity

Leilani B Mercado-Asis,Ma. Lourdes D Maglinao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35460/2546-1621.2022-sp05

2022-12-07

Abstract:Research integrity is manifested thru the use of honest and verifiable research methods with adherence to accepted professional codes. Recently, trustworthiness in research has been challenged by various forms of research misconduct, such as analytical flexibility, data dredging, HARKing (hypothesis after research knowledge), plagiarism, and selective and distorted reporting. Drivers of research misconduct have been identified as institutional--publication incentives to pursue a career, researcher--metric of success is publication volume, and the journal-- more likely to accept papers with positive. The open-access mode propelling the proliferation of predatory journals is causing a dilemma to sound research reporting. Measures were established to curtail research integrity challenges, such as study registration, open data, common reporting standards, a team of rivals, and blind analysis. This report will elaborate and provide insight into what influenced research misconduct, how it can be mitigated, and how to maintain a credible research environment.
Breach of academic values and misconduct: the case of Sci-Hub

Giulia Rossello,Arianna Martinelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05046-8

IF: 3.801

2024-07-29

Scientometrics

Abstract:This paper investigates the growing evidence of research-related misconduct by developing and testing a theoretical framework. We study the deep causes of misconduct by asking whether the perception of an erosion of the core academic values, formally an ideology-based psychological contract breach, is associated with research-related misconduct. We test our framework by examining the use of Sci-Hub and providing empirical evidence that the loss of faith in scientific research sparkles research-related misconduct against publishers. Based on a stratified sample of 2849 academics working in 30 institutions in 6 European countries, we find that ideology-based psychological contract breach explains Sci-Hub usage, also when controlling for other possible motivations. The magnitude of the effect depends on contextual and demographic characteristics. Females, foreign, and tenured scholars are less likely to download papers illegally when experiencing a contract breach of academic values. Our results suggest that policies restoring academic values might also address research-related misconduct.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Paper trail

Frederik Joelving,Retraction Watch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado0309

IF: 56.9

2024-01-20

Science

Abstract:In the latest twist of the publishing arms race, firms churning out fake papers have taken to bribing journal editors

multidisciplinary sciences
A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences

Taraneh Mousavi,Mohammad Abdollahi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40199-020-00332-1

Abstract:Background: In the new era of publication, scientific misconduct has become a focus of concern including extreme variability of plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, authorship issues, peer review manipulation, etc. Along with, overarching theme of "retraction" and "predatory journals" have emphasized the importance of studying related infrastructures. Methods: Information used in this review was provided through accessing various databases as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Nature Index, Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch. Original researches, expert opinions, comments, letters, editorials, books mostly published between 2010 and 2020 were gathered and categorized into three sections of "Common types of misconduct"," Reasons behind scientific misconduct" and "Consequences". Within each part, remarkable examples from the past 10 years cited in Retraction Watch are indicated. At last, possible solution on combating misconduct are suggested. Results: The number of publications are on the dramatic rise fostering a competition under which scholars are pushed to publish more. Consequently, due to several reasons including poor linguistic and illustration skills, not adequate evaluation, limited experience, etc. researchers might tend toward misbehavior endangering the health facts and ultimately, eroding country, journal/publisher, and perpetrator's creditability. The reported incident seems to be enhanced by the emergence of predatory with publishing about 8 times more papers in 2014 than which is in 2010. So that today, 65.3% of paper retraction is solely attributing to misconduct, with plagiarism at the forefront. As well, authorship issues and peer-review manipulation are found to have significant contribution besides further types of misconduct in this duration. Conclusion: Given the expansion of the academic competitive environment and with the increase in research misconduct, the role of any regulatory sector, including universities, journals/publishers, government, etc. in preventing this phenomenon must be fully focused and fundamental alternation should be implemented in this regard.
An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies

David B. Resnik,Lisa M. Rasmussen,Grace E. Kissling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.958218

2015-04-30

Accountability in Research

Abstract:Research misconduct is an international concern. Misconduct policies can play a crucial role in preventing and policing research misconduct, and many institutions have developed their own policies. While institutional policies play a key role in preventing and policing misconduct, national policies are also important to ensure consistent promulgation and enforcement of ethical standards. The purpose of this study was to obtain more information about research misconduct policies across the globe. We found that twenty-two of the top forty research and development funding countries (55%) had a national misconduct policy. Four countries (18.2%) are in the process of developing a policy, and four (18.2%) have a national research ethics code but no misconduct policy. All twenty-two countries (100%) with national policies included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the definition of misconduct, but beyond that there was considerable diversity. Unethical authorship was mentioned in 54.6% of the misconduct definitions, followed by unethical publication practices (36.4%), conflict of interest mismanagement (36.4%), unethical peer review (31.8%), misconduct related to misconduct investigations (27.3%), poor record keeping (27.3%), other deception (27.3%), serious deviations (22.7%), violating confidentiality (22.7%), and human or animal research violations (22.7%). Having a national policy was positively associated with research and development funding ranking and intensiveness. To promote integrity in international research collaborations, countries should seek to harmonize and clarify misconduct definitions and develop procedures for adjudicating conflicts when harmonization does not occur.

Peru moves to crack down on fraud in research publishing

Awareness of predatory publishing for Peruvian university professors and lecturers doing research

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

[Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity]

Scientific fraud: attack on the credibility of science

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

Spanish rector accused of inflating citation count

Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals

[Scientific misconduct: A major threat for medical research]

Rooting out scientific misconduct

Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

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

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

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

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

Improving Systems to Promote Research Integrity

Breach of academic values and misconduct: the case of Sci-Hub

Paper trail

A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences

An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies