We need to find the most comprehensive and serious organization. could you guide us about it?
Babak Jamshidi , we have to be careful in this matter. In some places, there may be not a single committee of ethics for us to make a written complaint. Yet it's so important, right? Even recently, we had medical experts reverse their positions on the effectiveness of mask wearing in COVID 19 times. I rejoice that they admit their mistakes.
In education institutions, we truly depend on the integrity of researchers. In my place, we have no avenue to address the issue.
In relation to the ethics issue, someone may suffer if she refuses to give in to the pressure of gift publishing. I know this pain myself. But we can still uphold ethics despite suffering the loss of our position, because we know that research is not a 'finite game' where you play to win; but an 'infinite game' where we are in to continue to serve others in our country and beyond.
cc Ierardi Enzo , Ljubomir Jacić , Wolfgang H. Muss
Babak Jamshidi, Check the EU copyright legislation on the following link:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/eu-copyright-framework
Miranda Yeoh Thanks for your comment. I do communicate with the professors you suggested.
Dear Babak Jamshidi , each University has its own ethical commitee, while there is no such type of Institution at the State level. As far, as I am concerned, it is a MUST! It shoul exist at the national level.
The most known and well established institution fighting misconduct and unethical behaviour is COPE.
"COPE provides leadership in thinking on publication ethics and practical resources to educate and support members, and offers a professional voice in current debates ..."
https://publicationethics.org/
Dear Babak Jamshidi , I find that you will be interested in the following list by Retraction Watch.
The Retraction Watch Leaderboard
Who has the most retractions? Here’s our unofficial list (see notes on methodology), which we’ll update as more information comes to light...
We note that all but one of the top 31 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to have papers retracted for fraud...
https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/
The paper recommends that regulatory and funding bodies ensure that no credit or funding is given to publish and present in predatory journals and conferences. Libraries have a significant role to play – they should spread awareness among the researchers about the detrimental effect of fake publishing and conferencing; educate researchers about how to differentiate between bogus, fake journals, conferences, and the genuine ones... (PDF) Stemming the rising tide of predatory journals and conferences: A selective review of literature. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344782734_Stemming_the_rising_tide_of_predatory_journals_and_conferences_A_selective_review_of_literature [accessed Jan 24 2021].
Dear Babak Jamshidi , here is the fine example.
Journal flags a dozen papers as likely paper mill products a year after sleuths identified them
A journal has issued a dozen expressions of concern over articles that a group of data sleuths had flagged last year on PubPeer as showing signs of having been cranked out by a paper mill...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/08/journal-flags-a-dozen-papers-as-likely-paper-mill-products-a-year-after-sleuths-identified-them/
Dear Professor Ljubomir Jacić Thank you for your kindness. Your answers are greatly helpful.
Retraction Watch - Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
The most comprehensive source for retractions by a wide margin — surpassed 25,000 retractions...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/02/25000-thats-how-many-retractions-are-now-in-the-retraction-watch-database/
STM is such institution!
"At STM we support our members in their mission to advance research worldwide. Our over 140 members based in over 20 countries around the world collectively publish 66% of all journal articles and tens of thousands of monographs and reference works. As academic and professional publishers, learned societies, university presses, start-ups and established players we work together to serve society by developing standards and technology to ensure research is of high quality, trustworthy and easy to access. We promote the contribution that publishers make to innovation, openness and the sharing of knowledge and embrace change to support the growth and sustainability of the research ecosystem. As a common good, we provide data and analysis for all involved in the global activity of research..."
https://www.stm-assoc.org
Dear Ljubomir Jacić , interesting viewpoint/information.
May I be allowed to point other readers to the "BYLAWS", published as a pdf on the Website of "STM", which also determines the full name of the Association, Aims and the 'members' of that organisation as well:
(>>QUOTE:"Association" means the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), an international non-political and non-governmental organisation; the Association is established for an indeterminate period of time; …. Page not found - STM (stm-assoc.org) = https://www.stm-assoc.org/about-the-industry/industry-videos-reports/ : Page not found
As always: My best wishes and regards, Wolfgang
How the Centre for Journalology hopes to fix science
The group studies processes and practices to improve research, including defining predatory publishing, issuing guidelines for clinical trials, and implementing open science practices...
https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/Centre-Journalology-hopes-fix-science/99/i17
Dear Dr. Babak Jamshidi , I thank you for 'the roses' in your most recent answer I appreciate...BUT: please don't call me a 'Professor' because I'm not...You might follow more informal entitling...and the >>@
Thank you Ljubomir Jacić and Wolfgang H. Muss to enrich the discussion with your contributions. I am sure there are researchers other than me to use your guidance.
Retractions, expressions of concern, and corrections often arise from reader critiques sent by readers, whether those readers are others in the field, sleuths, or other interested parties. In many of those cases, journals seek the input of authors’ employers, often universities...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/05/18/how-can-universities-and-journals-work-together-better-on-misconduct-allegations/
"How Should You Report Scientific Misconduct?
["ENAGO ACADEMY", QUOTE; NB: ORI and COPE, and PubPEER]
Last updated Mar 12, 2020
The number of retracted papers has increased considerably during the last few years and the reasons for these retractions are many. In some cases, the manuscripts had to be withdrawn because of honest errors made during the study, but in other cases the problem was more serious and the retractions involved at least one of the ten common types of scientific misconduct including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements, and others.
The entire academic community is responsible for maintaining scientific integrity so researchers, reviewers, editors, publishers, and academic institutions alike play an important role in avoiding and disclosing possible cases of scientific misconduct. ..."
[END QUOTE; source: https://www.enago.com/academy/how-should-you-report-scientific-misconduct/]
vs. historical attempts through publishing:
e.g.:
REPORTING UNETHICAL RESEARCH BEHAVIOR
NEIL S. WENGER, STANLEY G. KORENMAN, RICHARD BERK, HONGHU LIU University of California, Los Angeles
EVALUATION REVIEW, Vol. 23 No. 5, October 1999 553-570© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Source:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.965.9694&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Without bibliographic data:
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/71557/1/Associations%2Bbetween%2Battitudes%2Btowards%2Bscientific%2Bmisconduct%2Band%2Bself-reported%2Bbehavior%2BSubmitted%2Brevised%2Bversion.pdf
Have great Pentecost days and time to recover/to recreate yourself...WHM
Complaints received from whistleblowers can develop into large investigations with multiple journals, editors, and publishers involved. Such complaints may involve many articles from a single author group or multiple author groups whose articles are linked by certain traits. Some journals or publishers may only have one or two papers involved but others may have tens of articles in question. Following best practice for investigating the allegations, the editor would approach the authors for an explanation for each article and review the authors’ responses to the issue in that article. Appropriate editorial action is then taken on that article, usually without reference to the broader concerns.
As such complaints become more frequent, should editors continue the previous best practice to treat each case individually or in isolation? Taken in the context of just one or two papers, it could be an acceptable resolution to issue an erratum or correction for an error, but how much consideration should be given to the wider context of the concerns when looking at errors in individual papers?
https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/coordination-multi-journal-complaints
This survey from South Korea speaks itself.
In South Korea, only 40% of faculty members "are aware of what research misconduct is and the process of investigating it."
Only about 6 in 10 university faculty members, including professors and graduate students, are aware of what research misconduct is and the process of investigating it, according to a report by the National Research Foundation of Korea...
For the reasons behind constant violations of research ethics, more than a third of the university faculty members pointed to the performance-oriented research culture that comes from fierce competition among researchers and the evaluation system that focuses on the quantity of work...
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210716000780
Scientists have inundated Sweden’s new national research-misconduct investigation agency with cases. The National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (NPOF) is among the world’s first national bodies set up to deal with misconduct allegations. Typically, those cases are handled in-house by universities and research institutions. Researchers brought 46 cases to NPOF in its first year — three times higher than officials were expecting...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02451-4
New findings from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity about scientific misconduct.
A cancer researcher who was a former division director at Emory University in Atlanta “engaged in research misconduct by knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly falsifying data” in a federal grant application and six published papers...
Wang “neither admits nor denies” ORI’s findings of misconduct, according to the agency’s report on the case. She agreed to a four-year ban on any federal funding, and to correct or retract four papers...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/16/former-emory-division-director-committed-misconduct-says-federal-watchdog/
The Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust
We announce the creation of a new body within the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called the Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust, charged with advancing the overall health, quality, and effectiveness of the research enterprise across all domains that fund, execute, disseminate, and apply scientific work in the public interest. By promoting the alignment of incentives and policies, adoption of standard tools, and implementation of proven methods, the Strategic Council seeks to optimize the excellence and trustworthiness of research for the benefit of society...
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/41/e2116647118
Hundreds of articles published in peer-reviewed journals are being retracted after scammers exploited the processes for publishing special issues to get poor-quality papers — sometimes consisting of complete gibberish — into established journals. In some cases, fraudsters posed as scientists and offered to guest-edit issues that they then filled with sham papers.
Elsevier is withdrawing 165 articles currently in press and plans to retract 300 more that have been published as part of 6 special issues in one of its journals, and Springer Nature is retracting 62 articles published in a special issue of one journal. The retractions come after the publishers each issued expressions of concern earlier this year, covering hundreds of articles...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03035-y
This is the practice from Japan!
Procedures and Principles of Disposal of Research Misconduct in Japan From the Perspective of Case Analysis
Increased focus on scientific developments and technological innovations and continuously rising research funding have led to numerous cases of research misconduct that blurs the boundaries between ethics, science, and culture. In our paper, we aim to develop a framework for understanding management and governance in the self-discipline stance, based on case studies from Japan. We adopted a quantity approach by examining cases from 2015 to 2019 provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (MEXT), seeking to analyze the relationship between the handling of research misconduct in Japan and the relevant national regulations from the perspective of behavior definition, investigation process, responsibility, the process of the investigator, and handling measures. The results of this analysis will help to determine improved methods for processing and making decisions, and conducting assessments while examining cases of research misconduct...
Article Procedures and Principles of Disposal of Research Misconduct...
Fraud in biomedical research, though relatively uncommon, damages the scientific community by diminishing the integrity of the ecosystem and sending other scientists down fruitless paths. When exposed and publicized, fraud also reduces public respect for the research enterprise, which is required for its success. Although the human frailties that contribute to fraud are as old as our species, the response of the research community to allegations of fraud has dramatically changed...
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/839285
“The seminal question is, why does scientific misconduct exist?”
It has been a difficult year for scientific integrity. The problem of scientific misconduct is occupying a disappointingly increasing amount of time in the research world and has reached the lay press. Misconduct requires ever growing vigilance, scrutiny, and at times forensic investigation, on the part of journals, editors, reviewers, readers, misconduct sleuths, and academic institutions...
Scientific misconduct has unfortunately become so common that the study of this behavior has evolved into a full-fledged discipline—no longer just a cottage industry. Those now studying it include scientists, sociologists, historians, economists, and even philosophers...
https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/135/3/377/116295/Scientific-Integrity-and-Misconduct-Yet-Again
Article Scientific Integrity and Misconduct—Yet Again
Virtually all of the scholarly literature on responsible conduct in research (RCR) focuses on the integrity of scientists – including why scientists misbehave, and how to improve training and enhance compliance with institutional and federal policies and regulations to prevent research misconduct. What this literature does not yet address is the integrity of those responsible for research administration. This article explores the responsible conduct of research administration and the potential for administrative misconduct. I highlight ways in which a lack of integrity in research administration can jeopardize the progress of science, the careers of researchers, and the reputation of institutions just as much as research misconduct can. Accordingly, I call for policies and appropriate oversight of research administration that are on par with policies governing research misconduct by scientists...
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2021.2020110?journalCode=gacr20
Higher education must stop covering up misconduct, for if universities will not give up non-disclosure agreements, how can we expect private corporations to do any better, asks Julie Macfarlane, co-founder of Can’t Buy My Silence...
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/higher-education-must-stop-covering-misconduct?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial-daily
In these times of neo-liberalism it will be very difficult to find a serious, honorable and honest institution and if there were, it is almost certain that you will have to pay for the service.
The Singapore Statement of 2010 was the first international effort to unify policies, guidelines and codes of conduct to foster research integrity worldwide and is referenced in the large majority of later national codes of conduct on research integrity. The Singapore Statement rests on four key principles:
- Honesty in all aspects of research
- Accountability in the conduct of research
- Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others
- Good stewardship of research on behalf of others..
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/02/10/guest-post-research-integrity-ensuring-trust-in-global-research/?informz=1
Former graduate student voices concerns for misconduct in bioengineering research lab...
After Li shared his LinkedIn post and it gained wide attraction, he described how his goal was to now have greater impact across academia as much as possible. He wants the University to lead the way and use his case as a catalyst so that situations like this can be better dealt with in the future...
https://dailyillini.com/news-stories/campus-life/2022/04/15/research-lab-misconduct-uiuc/
In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct...
Article La Oficina de Integridad Científica en España. Una tarea pendiente
The argument for adopting a jurisprudence platform for scientific misconduct
Next to direct effects on the procedures in case of alleged scientific misconduct, there are also some indirect positive effects to be considered that have no such direct effect. More specifically, a jurisprudence platform provides a framework to keep the conversation on scientific values and norms as part of the daily routine in the scientific enterprise, and not only discussed incidentally when an alleged case of misconduct arises. The most important aspect of the platform might be that it can be used to educate and train scientists...
Springer Nature has released PySciDetect, open source research integrity software for identifying fake research, which is available for all publishers and those within the academic community to download and use...
https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/springer-nature-universite-grenoble-alpes-tackle-fake-papers/20262466
Ohio State University (OSU) investigations have identified misconduct by two scientists in the laboratory of prominent cancer researcher Carlo Croce. The university has cleared Croce of misconduct, but disciplined him over management problems and removed his endowed chair...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02002-5
Theranos founder "Elizabeth Holmes Is Sentenced to More Than 11 Years for Fraud." In 2018, we wondered "What should happen to a paper published by Theranos?"
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/10/02/what-should-happen-to-a-paper-published-by-theranos/
A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog.
Alice C. Chang, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years...
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/13/cancer-researcher-banned-from-federal-funding-for-faking-data-in-nearly-400-images-in-16-grant-applications/
This is fine example. the Community for Rigor, or C4R.
Run by a group of neuroscience researchers at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, along with colleagues from around the United States and Canada, C4R creates educational materials about biases in experimental design, data analysis and other elements of research that contribute to the lack of rigor that many in biomedical science cite as the root of a “replication crisis.”
https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/null-and-noteworthy-reinforcing-rigor-medication-medley/
A federal judge has denied a request for a preliminary injunction by a breast cancer researcher at SUNY Downstate in Brooklyn who sued the university last year after an institutional investigation determined that she committed research misconduct.
However, the judge noted “troubling aspects of this case that bear on serious public health concerns” – namely the discontinuation of the scientist’s research – and also expressed concern about SUNY Downstate and the NIH’s treatment of her...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/27/kafkaesque-nightmare-judge-wants-researcher-reinstated-as-nih-grant-pi-after-med-schools-misconduct-finding/
The story of this whistleblower is good direction to act. His experience is tremendous. Ryu Young-joon is a pathologist and professor at Kangwon National University Hospital located in the eastern city of Chuncheon...
His fight started when the broadcasting company aired the story...
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/07/113_355797.html
Melbourne’s iconic Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre has become embroiled in a research misconduct scandal after an investigation discovered experiments in an important cancer study were likely never performed.
The centre could now be required to repay taxpayer dollars used to run the melanoma study.
The study was led by Mark Smyth, who was one of Australia’s foremost cancer researchers until 2021, when his employer, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Queensland, reported him over allegations of research misconduct...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/peter-maccallum-cancer-centre-embroiled-in-sham-research-scandal-20230818-p5dxmr.html
Australia’s academics are grappling with how to handle investigations into scientific misconduct. Currently, research institutes conduct internal investigations, but there are growing criticisms of the current system and calls for an independent research-integrity office. Universities are divided over whether one is needed: some say it will create unnecessary duplication, but others support external oversight...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02669-4
More news from Australia!
Australia needs a science fraud watchdog — one with teeth
Faced with growing awareness of scientific misconduct, Australia is considering an independent oversight body. But caution is urged.
Last month Bruce Lander, a former commissioner in the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption, called for the nation to create a watchdog agency separate from universities to look into cases of potential scientific misconduct.
He’d come to that conclusion after digging into the high-profile case of Mark Smyth, formerly of the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, which initially involved alleged delays and obfuscation by the institutions involved...
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/20/australias-science-fraud-watchdog-research-misconduct/
Paolo Macchiarini, the former stem cell surgeon who was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison by a Swedish court for aggravated assault against patients he treated, is expected to begin his sentence sometime in the coming weeks. But he is likely to serve his sentence in Spain, where he currently lives, not in Sweden...
https://www.science.org/content/article/disgraced-surgeon-paolo-macchiarini-whose-crimes-inspired-opera-headed-prison
Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab (Learn from failure)
Journals, funders and institutions that employ researchers all want to produce or disseminate rigorous scientific knowledge — and all can learn lessons from misconduct cases.
Research misconduct is hugely detrimental to science and to society. Defined as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” by the US Office of Research Integrity, it violates trust in science and can do great harm to the wider public, scientific institutions and especially co-authors and students who had no part in the wrongdoing. In cases involving public funds, it squanders resources that could have been allocated to other research and it can erode lawmakers’ support for science.
Does the scientific community, as a whole, have appropriate processes for reporting, investigating and communicating about instances of potential misconduct? This question is not new. At Nature, we’re asking it again, after two separate studies that we published were subsequently retracted...
What can journal editors, funding organizations and institutions that employ researchers learn from such cases? We have the same goal: producing and reporting rigorous research of the highest possible standard. And we need to learn some collective lessons — including on the exchange of information...
Retractions are part of publishing research, and all journals must be committed to retracting papers after due process is completed. Although a paper can be retracted for many reasons, when the cause is potential misconduct, institutions must conduct thorough investigations.
This case is not yet closed. Both the university and the funder need to formally announce the investigation’s results, and what action they intend to take. They should not delay any more than is necessary. When there is credible evidence of potential scientific misconduct, investigations should not be postponed. There is strength in collaborating to solve a problem, and nothing to be ashamed of in preserving the integrity of the scientific record..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01174-6
Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers
Borrowing the idea of ‘bug bounties’ from the technology industry could provide a systematic way to detect and correct the errors that litter the scientific literature...
"Just as many industries devote hefty funding to incentivizing people to find and report bugs and glitches, so the science community should reward the detection and correction of errors in the scientific literature. In our industry, too, the costs of undetected errors are staggering...
Our project, Estimating the Reliability and Robustness of Research (ERROR), pays specialists to check highly cited published papers, starting with the social and behavioural sciences (see go.nature.com/4bmlvkj). Our reviewers are paid a base rate of up to 1,000 Swiss francs (around US$1,100) for each paper they check, and a bonus for any errors they find. The bigger the error, the greater the reward — up to a maximum of 2,500 francs.
Authors who let us scrutinize their papers are compensated, too: 250 francs to cover the work needed to prepare files or answer reviewer queries, and a bonus 250 francs if no errors (or only minor ones) are found in their work...
Scholars can’t expect errors to go away by themselves. Science can be self-correcting — but only if we invest in making it so..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01465-y
https://error.reviews/