Analysis and Implications of Retraction Period and Coauthorship of Fraudulent Publications

Studies have indicated that the number and frequency of fraudulent publications being retracted are not subsiding even with greater awareness of such incidents in the recent decades. In this study, the trends of retraction period, number of citations and coauthors of 5 selected researchers who had ≥ 15 fraudulent publications retracted were analyzed. The obtained results shows that the retraction period is 48.96 ± 32.16 months for the 113 publications affiliated to the 5 studied researchers. There are a total of 180 coauthors with 6.40 ± 3.26 coauthors per researcher's retracted publication. The linear regression analysis indicates that there is limited correlation (R² = .008) between the citation counts and retraction period. The p value for multiple F-tests to assess the number of coauthors to a fraudulent publication on an interresearcher basis is found to be ranging from < .001 to .458. It is also found that a better correlation (R² = .592) exists between the likelihood of a researcher to involve different individuals for isolated fraudulent publications while only selecting very few to be their frequent coauthors of their mischievous acts. With this study, the possible use of coauthors as a strategy for publishing fraudulent work and a potential approach to tighten coauthorship are discussed.     

导师如何对研究生进行学术诚信管理

针对近几年来研究生中的学术失范现象,从原创性设计和道德品德的角度,探讨了导师如何对研究生进行学术行为不端的管理策略：导师带领研究生踏踏实实地开展科研创新活动,并对撰写论文过程严格把关;导师与研究生管理部门一道汲取国外有效的做法和经验,加强学术诚信教育,改革现有的评奖和激励机制,将学术道德状况记入个人诚信档案,使学术行为规范化,在培养使研究生创新能力的基础上提升其学术道德水准。     

学术不端行为检测系统应用中研究生学术不端行为的防治

研究生学术不端问题一直存在,近些年呈扩大趋势,但由于研究生的学术地位等因素,一直未受到高校和社会相关部门的关注。本文通过学位论文学术不端行为检测系统的一个实例,介绍了研究生学术不端的类型及得以滋生的温床,最后提出一些改变现状的思路。     

Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct

This article describes and discusses the views of researchers on the significance of raising concerns about scientific misconduct in their work environment and the reasons or circumstances that might deter them from doing so. In this exploratory qualitative research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 researchers working in life sciences and medicine. They represent three seniority levels and five universities across Switzerland. A large majority of respondents in this research study argued that failure to raise concerns about scientific misconduct compromises research integrity. This is an encouraging result demonstrating that researchers try to adhere to high ethical standards. However, further interaction with respondents highlighted that this correct ethical assessment does not lead researchers to take the consequent action of raising concerns. The factors that discourage researchers from raising concerns need to be addressed at the level of research groups, institutions, and by setting a positive precedent which helps them to believe in the system’s ability to investigate concerns raised in a timely and professional manner. Training of researchers in research integrity related issues will have limited utility unless it is coupled with the creation of research culture where raising concerns is a standard practice of scientific and research activities.     

Researchers experience of misconduct in research in Malaysian higher education institutions

This article offers a qualitative analysis of research misconduct witnessed by researchers during their careers, either by research students or fellow researchers, when conducting or supervising research in their respective departments. Interviews were conducted with 21 participants from various research backgrounds and with a range of research experience, from selected universities in Malaysia. Our study found that misbehavior such as manipulating research data, misrepresentation of research outcomes, plagiarism, authorship disputes, breaching of research protocols, and unethical research management was witnessed by participants among junior and senior researchers, albeit for different reasons. This indicates that despite the steps taken by the institutions to monitor research misconduct, it still occurs in the research community in Malaysian institution of higher education. Therefore, it is important to admit that misconduct still occurs and to create awareness and knowledge of it, particularly among the younger generation of researchers. The study concludes that it is better for researchers to be aware of the behaviors that are considered misconduct as well as the factors that contribute to misconduct to solve this problem.     

Student views on campus sexual assault

Abstract

Objective: To report on college student opinions about the scope of college sexual misconduct (CSM), suggested university sanctions, and treatment of students found responsible of CSM.

Participants: In all, 23?US undergraduate students (14 females and 9 males) with a mean age of 20 years.

Methods: Students participated either in female, male, or mixed-sex focus groups that facilitated the discussion of factors related to CSM.

Results: Students provided in-depth feedback on the climate on US college campuses and factors related to CSM. They agreed upon CSM risk factors and context characteristics, but raised different male and female issues across sex groups. They further provided resolute suggestions for the solution of CSM, experienced treatment barriers, and limited victim reporting.

Conclusion: Student focus groups provide important information about the scope of CSM and offer valuable suggestions for the solution of the problem that may be crucial for the development of successful sexual assault interventions.     

提倡合理引用,反对学术不端——《口腔医学》应用学术不端检测系统的问题和对策

文章对《口腔医学》2012年8月1日～2013年5月1日间391篇论文应用中国知网学术不端检测系统的检测结果进行分析,发现有14.58％的投稿文字复制比＞30％.高复制比论文以临床研究为主,与同期投稿情况比较,综述、口腔正畸学论文出现高复制比的论文比例高于其他类型和学科的论文;复制来源于他人的期刊和学位论文较多,出现重合较多的部分主要是治疗或研究方法,以及讨论中的概念以及引证他人观点部分;其次是观察指标或者疗效评价标准.同时对学术不端的几个相关问题,如抄袭和合理引用、如何具体分析医学论文的复制部分、如何看待学位论文内容在期刊发表和一稿多投等进行了探讨.     

Introduction to the Current Commentaries

ABSTRACT

Despite federal and state laws and policies aimed at preventing sexual misconduct by school employees, one in ten American students will experience sexual abuse or misconduct at the hands of a K-12 school employee. To explore why such sexual misconduct continues to occur, this study examined the effectiveness of education policies by investigating whether and how school employees understand these policies, how they are implemented, and how loopholes may undermine their intent. This qualitative case study was conducted in three Virginia school districts and included 46 semi-structured interviews with school district employees and county, state, and federal government employees associated with cases of school employee sexual misconduct, and extensive document analysis of school policies and procedures, laws, and court records. Analyses revealed an absence of policy implementation, demonstrated most seriously by a lack of awareness and understanding of policies among school employees, underreporting, and ineffective data collection. The study also identified a number of loopholes in the implementation of policies, resulting from a mismanaged intergovernmental system. The analysis suggests that understanding and implementation of policies meant to prevent sexual misconduct by school employees are fragmented; this fragmentation may be contributing to the continued prevalence of sexual misconduct by school employees.     

Protecting the Public's Health in An Era of Bioterrorism: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

During the fall of 2001, public health law scholars at the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities were asked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a series of national partners to develop the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). The MSEHPA provides a series of modern powers for states to consider in responding to catastrophic public health emergencies, including bioterrorism events. Since December 2001, provisions based on the MSEHPA have been introduced in nearly 40 states and passed in 20. Underlying the development of the act is a long-standing debate between legal and ethical scholars and law- and policymakers as to the appropriate ways to balance individual and communal rights. The drafting challenge was to create a comprehensive model law that provides adequate powers to protect the public's health while also respecting individual and group rights. The MSEHPA empowers public health agents with broad authority and simultaneously limits the exercise of power in time, duration, and scope to accomplish communal goals of abating serious public health threats. Coercive public health powers, particularly isolation and quarantine, are exercised on a temporary basis, only so long as are reasonably necessary and only among persons who justifiably may pose a risk to others because of their contagious conditions. Individual rights to contest the coercive use of public health powers, even during an emergency, are secured.     

Retrospective Reflections of a Whistleblower: Opinions on Misconduct Responses

Almost 10 years ago, when I was in my fourth year of graduate school, my fellow graduate students discovered that our thesis advisor had engaged in misconduct by falsifying and fabricating data in two grant applications. We informed the university and my advisor resigned. This event was a turning point in my life. Years later, I have gathered my thoughts and reflections on the experience. I believe we must first prevent what misconduct we can. But unfortunately some misconduct will still occur and in those circumstances we must respond to protect those affected by the misconduct and to progress beyond the event. In so doing, we get the most value out of scientific research.