Research Misconduct Policies of Social Science Journals and Impact Factor

In this study we gathered data on the misconduct policies of social science journals and combined it with the data from our previous study on journal misconduct policies, which did not include enough social science journals for data analysis. Consistent with our earlier finding, impact factor of the journal was the only variable significantly associated with whether a journal had a formal (written) misconduct policy with an odds-ratio of 1.72 (p < 0.01). We did not find that type of science (physical, biomedical, or social) or publisher had a significant effect on whether a journal had a policy. Another important finding is that less than half of the journals that responded to the survey had a formal misconduct policy.     

An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies

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.     

Effect of impact factor and discipline on journal data sharing policies

Data sharing is crucial to the advancement of science because it facilitates collaboration, transparency, reproducibility, criticism, and re-analysis. Publishers are well-positioned to promote sharing of research data by implementing data sharing policies. While there is an increasing trend toward requiring data sharing, not all journals mandate that data be shared at the time of publication. In this study, we extended previous work to analyze the data sharing policies of 447 journals across several scientific disciplines, including biology, clinical sciences, mathematics, physics, and social sciences. Our results showed that only a small percentage of journals require data sharing as a condition of publication, and that this varies across disciplines and Impact Factors. Both Impact Factors and discipline are associated with the presence of a data sharing policy. Our results suggest that journals with higher Impact Factors are more likely to have data sharing policies; use shared data in peer review; require deposit of specific data types into publicly available data banks; and refer to reproducibility as a rationale for sharing data. Biological science journals are more likely than social science and mathematics journals to require data sharing.     

An Analysis of Toxicology and Medical Journal Conflict-of-Interest Polices

Basic science and medical journals are increasingly requiring authors to disclose financial interests they have in the subject matter of contributed articles and letters. A comparison of journal conflict-of-interest (COI) policies can provide insight into published reports of low compliance rates and inconsistencies in disclosures by the same author found in different journals. The objective of this article is to compare the criteria, specificity, and scope of COI polices in toxicology and medical journals. We studied the COI policies of 47 toxicology and 180 medical journals catalogued in Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory for criteria of competing interests, types of submissions covered, monetary or time thresholds for reporting, and penalties for violations. Indicators were constructed for rating policy specificity, author discretion, and policy scope.

Written COI policies were found in 87% if the toxicology and 84% of the medical journals; 15% and 28% of the toxicology and medical journals, respectively, were explicit about the type of content covered by the policy; 20% and 29%, respectively, included a monetary threshold for reporting purposes; the level of author discretion for reporting COIs was found to be high in 46% of the toxicology and 41% of the medical journals respectively. The level of specificity for more than 75% of the written journal COI policies for both fields was minimal or practically nil, and the scope of more than 80% of the policies was minimal to narrow. Lack of specificity, high author discretion, and restricted scope were found to be prevalent among COI policies of toxicology and medical journals.     

Evaluating research misconduct policies at major research universities: a pilot study

This pilot study evaluates the accessibility and usefulness of the research misconduct (RM) policies at the top-25 universities as ranked by NIH and NSF grant awards. Measuring accessibility demonstrates how readily-available policies are to the people they affect. Evaluating the range of policy content indicates whether policies and procedures on research misconduct are "useful" as opposed to merely "minimal" (Rhoades, 2003). On average, it took five clicks to get from a university's home page to its RM policies. Only nine policies were accessed within three or fewer clicks. Policy information was coded into categories comprising a total of 20 topic areas, which were then grouped into five content domains. The policies reveal a broad range of usefulness. Some provide relevant details on almost every topic area, while others leave most questions unanswered. Three of the 20 topic areas are almost universally covered in the policies analyzed. In contrast, five other topic areas average less than half of the information which could have been included. These policies, from elite U.S. research universities, may serve as role models; as such they should perhaps be held to the highest standards. If the message sent by a policy lacks clarity and precision, it should be revised to include an appropriate level of detail.     

Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

Ensuring scientific integrity in research: Aspects of fairness and justice

The procedures established by the Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation reflect an inclination to keep lawyers and legalistic procedures out of scientific misconduct cases. Although misconduct cases resolved at the agencies’ Washington headquarters probably reflect a greater degree of concern with due process, their published procedures require institutions to resolve misconduct cases with virtually no guidance as to the demands of procedural due process.

A number of deficiencies in the handling of misconduct cases under PHS rules at the institutional level are discussed anecdotally on the basis of the author's experience in representing both whistle blowers and accused scientists in misconduct cases.

It is inevitable that some misconduct cases will be heard by the federal courts, and that some of the legalistic trappings of due process will be imposed by the courts. Lawyers and scientists should work together to develop techniques for resolving cases in a way that meets due process requirements without smothering science in a legalistic straight‐jacket.     

Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct

The Office of Research Integrity has proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct that will substantively reduce the federal government's role of oversight of scientific practices. The standard is being changed despite the lack of evidence about the effects of current policies or understanding of why research misconduct occurs, how it can be detected and prevented, and the nature and effectiveness of sanctions. Given this lack of knowledge and the perception that the integrity of science is falling, we believe it would be unwise for the academic and scientific community to adopt this new standard.     

Assessing the Seriousness of Research Misconduct: Considerations for Sanction Assignment

Federal and institutional policies recommend the criterion of “seriousness” as a guide for sanction assignment in cases where researchers have been found to have committed research misconduct. Discrepancies in assessments of seriousness for similar acts of misconduct suggest the need to clarify what might be meant by the seriousness of research misconduct and how the criterion can be used to assign sanctions. This essay demonstrates how determinations of seriousness can differ depending on the set of ethical appeals employed and argues that an expanded lexicon for talking about the seriousness of research misconduct would help to promote fairness and consistency in sanction assignment. It concludes with some policy recommendations for those charged with research misconduct sanction assignment and for those who oversee research integrity at institutional levels.     

Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions

In 2000, the U.S. federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how many do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 U.S. research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution’s total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were “other serious deviations” (45.4%), “significant or material violations of regulations” (23.0%), “misuse of confidential information” (15.8%), “misconduct related to misconduct” (14.8%), “unethical authorship other than plagiarism” (14.2%), “other deception involving data manipulation” (13.1%), and “misappropriation of property/theft” (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.     

Evaluating the Oversight of Scientific Misconduct

The office of Research Integrity has proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct that will substantively reduce the federal government's role of oversight of scientific practices. The standard is being changed despite the lack of evidence about the effects of current policies or understanding of why research misconduct occurs, how it can be detected and prevented, and the nature and effectiveness of sanctions. Given this lack of knowledge and the perception that the integrity of science is falling, we believe it would be unwise for the academic and scientific community to adopt this new standard.     

Scientific misconduct: Undue process

Numerous professional societies, universities, research funding sources, federal agencies, and Congressional committees have expressed concern about an apparent increasing incidence of scientific misconduct. Many of these organizations also have published standards for defining such misconduct and their procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. The futility of these procedures is illustrated by an example of blatant data falsification and fabrication in two different research projects conducted by a single researcher. The problem derives from administrative and judicial systems which have evolved to a stage where they are more concerned with process than outcome. An alternative to the resulting interminable “due process”; of the present system is tentatively suggested.     

Assessing the seriousness of research misconduct: considerations for sanction assignment

Federal and institutional policies recommend the criterion of "seriousness" as a guide for sanction assignment in cases where researchers have been found to have committed research misconduct. Discrepancies in assessments of seriousness for similar acts of misconduct suggest the need to clarify what might be meant by the seriousness of research misconduct and how the criterion can be used to assign sanctions. This essay demonstrates how determinations of seriousness can differ depending on the set of ethical appeals employed and argues that an expanded lexicon for talking about the seriousness of research misconduct would help to promote fairness and consistency in sanction assignment. It concludes with some policy recommendations for those charged with research misconduct sanction assignment and for those who oversee research integrity at institutional levels.     

Is the trend to publish reviews and clinical trials related to the journal impact factor? Analysis in dentistry field

ABSTRACT

It is generally accepted that the Journal Impact Factor is a quality criterion. The objective was to determine the evolution along the period 2010–2016 of number of different types of papers, reviews and clinical trials, published by dental journals, as well as if they are related with the quartile occupied in the Journal Impact Factor 2017 ranking. To this end, ten journals per quartile belonging to the field Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports were randomly selected. For each journal and year, the total number of narrative reviews, systematic reviews (with and without meta-analysis), meta-analysis, clinical trials and randomized controlled trials were obtained from Pubmed. To achieve our goal, the slope of these variables over time was estimated using the least squares method, after which one-way analysis of variance of mean values was performed. In Dentistry, the journals of the top quartiles show a trend to publish increasing amounts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, than the ones of the third and fourth quartile. On the other hand, globally, there was virtually no increase in narrative reviews, clinical trials and randomized controlled trial. Possible causes of this behavior are also discussed in this article.     

Declaring Conflict of Interest – Current State of Affairs in the Ophthalmic Literature

The importance of transparency with financial ties in biomedical research is widely recognized, and most peer-reviewed journals require declarations of Conflicts of Interest (COI). Nonetheless, variability in the consistency of declarations of COI has been sparsely assessed. To assess consistency and rates of COI declarations in the ophthalmic literature and the effectiveness of journal COI policies. We analyzed consistency and completeness of declaration of COI in the ophthalmic literature and compared the levels of completeness to specific journal requirements. Six-hundred forty-two peer reviewed articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. In 64%, COIs were unreported, in 25% declaration of COI was incomplete, and 11% of the articles reviewed had complete declaration of COI. Of the 33 journals in which the most frequently published authors’ articles appeared, 10 required the authors to complete the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) form or an equivalent form, but this did not affect the rates of COI declaration. In a random sampling of the most frequently published authors in the field of ophthalmology, declaration of COI was low and highly inconsistent. Requiring a standardized COI form has no significant effect on the rate of accurate COI reporting. Our findings lend support to the growing body of literature that shows that journals and editors may need to take a more active role in ensuring accurate and consistent COI reporting.     

Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?

U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication of data, falsification of data, or plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, some have argued or suggested that the definition of research misconduct should also include sexual harassment, sabotage, deceptive use of statistics, and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest (COI). While the arguments for revising the definition of misconduct used by federal agencies to include misbehaviors other than FFP are not convincing at this point in time, the arguments for revising definitions used by other organizations, such as professional societies, universities, or journals, may be. Since these other organizations play an important role in promoting integrity in science and deterring unethical behavior, they may consider adopting definitions of misconduct that extend beyond FFP. Debates about the definition of research misconduct are a normal and healthy part of broader discussions about integrity in science and how best to promote it. These debates should continue even if the federal definition of misconduct remains unchanged.     

Associations between attitudes towards scientific misconduct and self-reported behavior

We investigate the relationship between doctoral students’ attitudes towards scientific misconduct and their self-reported behavior. 203 questionnaires were distributed to doctoral candidates at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo 2016/2017. The response rate was 74%. The results show a correlation between attitudes towards misconduct and self-reported problematic behaviors among doctoral students in biomedicine. The four most common reported misbehaviors are adding author(s) who did not qualify for authorship (17.9%), collecting more data after seeing that the results were almost statistically significant (11.8%), turning a blind eye to colleagues’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data (11.2%), and reporting an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start (10.5%). We find correlations between scientific misbehavior and the location of undergraduate studies and whether the respondents have had science ethics lectures previously. The study provides evidence for the concurrent validity of the two instruments used to measure attitudes and behavior, i.e. the Kalichman scale and the Research Misbehavior Severity Score (RMSS). Although the direction of causality between attitudes and misbehavior cannot be determined in this study the correlation between the two indicates that it can be important to engender the right attitudes in early career researchers.