Priyanka Upadhyai’s Post

In recent years, research integrity has become an increasingly important discussion in scholarly publishing as retractions abound thanks to the rise of papermills, falsified or fraudulent data, image manipulation, and more. A breakdown of research integrity results in a lack of trust in the scientific process and has the potential to endanger patients. That’s why it’s critical for journals to help detect and address research misconduct. In today’s post from ORIGINal Thoughts, Lucy Shen shares a variety of research integrity tools that journals can employ to ensure the research they publish is trustworthy. https://lnkd.in/eSBeQ25y

An interesting read with far reaching implications if governments and healthcare relied upon the retracted reports. From the article: “A trend that bodes ill for the future of scientific publishing, and another signal that science is under attack, is the soaring number of research papers being retracted. According to a recent report in Nature magazine, over 10,000 retractions were issued for scientific papers in 2023. Although more than 8,000 of these were sham articles from a single publisher, Hindawi, all the evidence shows that retractions are rising more rapidly than the research paper growth rate. And the journal says the estimated total of about 50,000 retractions so far is only the tip of the iceberg of work that should be retracted. An earlier report in 2012 by a trio of medical researchers reviewed 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles retracted since 1977. They found that 43% of the retractions were attributable to fraud or suspected fraud, 14% to duplicate publication and 10% to plagiarism, with 21% withdrawn because of error. The researchers also discovered that retractions for fraud or suspected fraud as a percentage of total articles published have increased almost 10 times since 1975.

A more detailed Australian news summary, on the bigger research integrity issues academia faces - estimated to be worth $45 billion, is also underpinned by taxpayer money — including from Australia, which spends $2 billion a year on medical research alone. The reporter asked a top-ranked essay provider on Google what I would have to pay for a masters-level, 3,000 word essay examining Homer's Iliad which would be guaranteed to score a high distinction. The answer took less than 60 seconds: $238.55. They were assured the paper would not trigger anti-plagiarism software. It's good to see more is being done to address these issues, raise awareness, including stricter penalties, but alas, academic fraud and research misconduct is now a huge industry, and if you move the cheese a little, the mice (or rats) still find a way to find it! Extract from the article - Bruce Lander, the inaugural head of South Australia's anti-corruption commission, is among those who believe much more radical surgery is needed. Lander points out the obvious (and somewhat universal) flaws of the self-regulatory regime. Reporters of misconduct, usually lower down the pecking order, fear their careers will be railroaded by having blown the whistle. Universities suffer "a real disincentive" to carry out proper investigations, he says, not least because "it is not necessarily in the institution's best interests for it to become known that someone within the institution has engaged in research misconduct". They also have no powers to compel the production of evidence or even the cooperation of the accused, meaning "the opportunity to obtain evidence of that misconduct … is significantly reduced". https://lnkd.in/e5fbyYPa

Excited to share our article published today in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)!  It discusses the significance of the proposed changes to ORI’s research misconduct regulations. Taking a step back: Anyone interested in science has almost certainly noticed a recent surge in public interest and media coverage relating to allegations of research misconduct (falsification or fabrication of research data, or plagiarism). ORI’s research misconduct regulations are really important, because they define in great detail how institutions must investigate any concerns about potential falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism involving NIH-funded work (and NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world). In our JAMA article, Barbara Bierer, Mark Barnes, and I dive into the proposed changes, focusing on some of the changes that would be most impactful and problematic for institutions. ORI has recently reaffirmed that it expects to publish final changes later this year, so stay tuned! https://lnkd.in/dkf5av3y

Describe one change to scientific policy or culture that would substantially decrease incidents of scientific misconduct or other unethical behavior. Here are some answers: from young scientists in Science Magazine: -reduce subjectivity (eg mandate review and approval of author lists) -increase career stability (eg reduce PhD students or increase permanent positions) -broader assessments (eg assess research integrity and tie it to funding) -Enforce strict penalties (eg ban people who engage in plagiarism or data manipulation) -Require transparency (eg enforce data sharing) -De-emphasize publication quantity (eg focus on quality over quantity) -Invest in students (eg limit PhD duration) -Rethink publication criteria (eg make publication decisions and preregistration stage) -Focus on well-being (eg promote work-life balance) -Provide training (eg require ethics training) -Support global efforts (eg prioritize collaboration and research with local impact) What is missing: https://lnkd.in/eAxKV_HA

Scientific Integrity and Research Rigor: Their Impact on the Quality and Accuracy of Research Evaluation Scientific integrity and research rigor are fundamental to the credibility and advancement of scientific inquiry. Scientific integrity ensures ethical adherence, including proper citation, data transparency, and respect for research participants. It safeguards trust by eliminating practices like plagiarism and data falsification. On the other hand, research rigor represents the methodological strength of a study, ensuring reliability, replicability, and comprehensive consideration of limitations. These elements are essential for accurate research evaluation, as they provide evaluators with a reliable basis for assessing the validity and scholarly contributions of a study. A lack of integrity or rigor compromises evaluation quality, leading to potentially misleading conclusions and undermining scientific trust. To address challenges like ethical violations and methodological flaws, researchers and institutions must promote enhanced peer review processes, comprehensive training in ethics and methodology, and transparency through data sharing. Ultimately, the integration of integrity and rigor into the research process is vital for producing impactful knowledge and fostering the credibility of scientific endeavors.

These new COPE guidelines underline the importance of collaboration between research institutions and journals in maintaining research and publication integrity. These excellent guidelines offer recommendations on points of contact, information sharing, and communication. They also address potential misconduct involving multiple journals or institutions and the correction of the scholarly record. https://lnkd.in/epiJExQg #researchintegrity #scholarlypublishing #academicpublishing #researchethics #guidelines

In recent times, we've observed a notable increase in the number of research paper retractions. According to recent studies, 2023 has seen a significant uptick in retractions across various scientific disciplines. This trend highlights both the challenges and the evolving standards in the world of academic research.The reasons for these retractions are varied, ranging from honest errors and methodological flaws to more serious issues such as data manipulation and ethical breaches. While these incidents may cast a shadow on scientific integrity, they also underscore the importance of rigorous peer review and post-publication scrutiny.

🚨 **Scientific Misinformation: A Symptom of Deeper Academic Issues** 🚨 The recent rise in discussions about misinformation reminds me of a growing concern within the scientific community itself. While we often think of misinformation as false claims spread via social media, we sometimes forget that *credible* sources can be just as dangerous. Case in point: scientific papers with fudged data that have been linked to excess deaths. How do we get here? It’s not just about a few bad apples. Scientific fraud happens more often than we care to admit—whether from honest mistakes or, more often than not, deliberate actions. The peer review process, designed as a safeguard, is part of the problem. Publishers are incentivized to push out papers, while universities, with KPIs focused on the number of publications and citations, have their eyes on rankings and grants. This numbers game has led to paper mills—companies that literally sell authorships and bribe boards to publish falsified work. The worst part? There are rarely any real consequences. At best, a fraudulent paper is retracted; at worst, the scientist might lose their job, but the next employer has no way of knowing about the misconduct. As I reflect on my own introduction to academic reading, I’ve always wondered why more tangible data—raw results or code—aren’t more widely shared. Sure, there are ethical considerations, but the bigger issue is that we're asked to just trust the publishing houses. And with no true checks or balances, it’s hard to avoid these issues from happening again and again. Incentives seem to be the root cause of this mess. We’re incentivizing clicks, citations, and shares—shock value that gets people talking (and, ultimately, spending). But how do we create a system where *quality* information is incentivized? What if our incentives were tied to truth, not just numbers? I’d love to hear your thoughts—ideas, stories, theories. Let’s talk solutions. 💬 #Misinformation #ScientificFraud #AcademicIntegrity #ResearchEthics #PeerReview #IncentiveSystems Source: https://lnkd.in/edcyYJZW

🌍 Strengthening Global Research Integrity: A Call to Unite Against Paper Mills 🌍 The recent 8th World Conference on Research Integrity emphasized the urgent need for the global research community to unite against the rising threat of research paper mills. These enterprises jeopardize the credibility of scholarly work, posing significant risks to society and scientific advancement. Current efforts to combat paper mills are insufficient. Safeguarding research integrity demands a robust and sustained global campaign. Enhancing the technical capabilities of journal editors, reviewers, funders, researchers, and institutions is crucial to combat these deceitful practices effectively. Frequently targeting vulnerable researchers on the fringes of academia and backed by international crime syndicates, paper mills exploit popular topics like health and life sciences to produce fraudulent manuscripts for profit. This deceit erodes trust in academic scholarship and threatens societal well-being when counterfeit research is put into practice. To address this challenge, editors must be vigilant against suspicious submission patterns. Increased training, advanced detection tools, and heightened awareness are essential. Initiatives like United2Act are at the forefront, spearheading communication strategies, fostering stakeholder dialogues, and advocating for trust markers in research publications. In the words of Deborah Kahn from United2Act, "We are united, and we are acting. We are not one of those groups of people who talk and do nothing." The battle against paper mills necessitates collective action, sustained effort, and adequate support. Let's collaborate to uphold research integrity and protect the vital role legitimate research plays in social progress. #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicFraud #PaperMills #GlobalCollaboration #WCRI2024 #HigherEducation https://lnkd.in/dWfZ53Vf