{"title":"Research data mismanagement - from questionable research practice to research misconduct.","authors":"Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Good record keeping practice and research data management underlie responsible research conduct and promote reproducibility of research findings in the sciences. In many cases of research misconduct, inadequate research data management frequently appear as an accompanying finding. Findings of disorganized or otherwise poor data archival or loss of research data are, on their own, not usually considered as indicative of research misconduct. Focusing on the availability of raw/primary data and the replicability of research based on these, we posit that most, if not all, instances of research data mismanagement (RDMM) could be considered a questionable research practice (QRP). Furthermore, instances of RDMM at their worst could indeed be viewed as acts of research misconduct. Here, we analyze with postulated scenarios the contexts and circumstances under which RDMM could be viewed as a significant misrepresentation of research (ie. falsification), or data fabrication. We further explore how RDMM might potentially be adjudicated as research misconduct based on intent and consequences. Defining how RDMM could constitute QRP or research misconduct would aid the formulation of relevant institutional research integrity policies to mitigate undesirable events stemming from RDMM.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"706-713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10532026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kamiel Verbeke, Tomasz Krawczyk, Dieter Baeyens, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry
{"title":"Assessing the acceptability of individual studies that use deception: A systematic review of normative guidance documents.","authors":"Kamiel Verbeke, Tomasz Krawczyk, Dieter Baeyens, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2153675","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2153675","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research participants are often deceived for methodological reasons. However, assessing the ethical acceptability of an individual study that uses deception is not straightforward. The academic literature is scattered on the subject and several aspects of the acceptability assessment are only scarcely addressed, which parallels reports of inconsistent ethics review. Therefore, we aimed to investigate where normative guidance documents agree and disagree about this assessment. A PRISMA-Ethics-guided systematic review of normative guidance documents that discuss deception of research participants was conducted. Our search strategy resulted in 55 documents that were subsequently analyzed through abductive thematic analysis. While guidance documents mention little about specific risks and opportunities of deception, our analysis describes a rich picture of the thresholds for acceptability of the risks and benefits of deception and their integration, the comparison with the risk-benefit analysis of alternative non-deceptive methods, and the bodies of people who are positioned to do the review. Our review reveals an agreement on the general process of assessing the acceptability of studies that use deception, although significant variability remains in the details and several topics are largely or completely unaddressed in guidance documents.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"655-677"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10693454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study.","authors":"Kurtis Hagen","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2155517","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2155517","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The term \"statistical significance,\" ubiquitous in the medical literature, is often misinterpreted, as is the \"<i>p</i>-value\" from which it stems. This article explores the implications of results that are numerically positive (e.g., those in the treatment arm do better on average) but not statistically significant. This lack of statistical significance is sometimes interpreted as strong, even decisive, evidence against an effect without due consideration of other factors. Three influential articles on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 are illustrative. They all involve numerically positive results that were not statistically significant that were misinterpreted as strong evidence against HCQ's efficacy. These and related considerations raise concerns regarding the reliability of academic/medical reasoning around COVID-19 treatments, as well as more generally, and regarding the potential for bias stemming from conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"600-619"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10370268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The present situation of and challenges in research ethics and integrity promotion: Experiences in East Asia.","authors":"Chien Chou, In Jae Lee, Jun Fudano","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2155144","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2155144","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As relatively new economies to the global research arena, East Asian nations have fully realized the importance of research integrity in recent decades. This article conducts document analysis to demonstrate and discuss the current situation of research integrity campaigns in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, nations that have similar cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. This article emphasizes the common situations faced by these three nations both individually and collectively. Based on a four-pillar framework, research integrity campaigns in these nations are making progress in terms of policies and regulations, institutional management, researchers' education and training, and the handling of misconduct cases. Various issues and challenges have also emerged in this context, although these efforts may have had positive impacts on research communities in these three nations. Challenges associated with research integrity governance, institutional willingness, RCR instructor qualifications, the effectiveness of education, and the standardization of definitions of misconduct and noncompliance are also highlighted. The issues discussed in this article are expected to have implications for research communities and policy-makers in these three nations as well as in a global context.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"576-599"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10533078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences.","authors":"Carla Brigitte Susan Kohl, Clovis Mariano Faggion","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2154660","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2154660","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of previous research that has investigated retractions within the biomedical fields and assess their methodological quality. We searched three major electronic databases for articles on retractions within the biomedical field: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. In total, 162 articles were included in the analysis. We evaluated their methodological quality using the items of \"a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews\" (AMSTAR-2) checklist and the Cochrane guidance. The studies had been published in more than 20 biomedical disciplines or fields of investigation, and two-thirds were published after 2017. Concerning methodology, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; five studies did not meet any of the suggested AMSTAR-2 categories or Cochrane guidelines. The most prevalent reported reasons for retraction were fraud and plagiarism (21.0%). In summary, there has been increasing interest in assessing the characteristics and impact of retractions in the biomedical sciences. The studies cited types of misconduct more often than honest errors as a major reason for retraction. The methodological quality of the existing studies in this area appears to be suboptimal. Future investigators should improve upon this, particularly in the quality of the data selection and extraction.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"557-575"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10527799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Andrijana Perković Paloš, Rea Roje, Vicko Tomić, Ana Marušić
{"title":"Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe.","authors":"Andrijana Perković Paloš, Rea Roje, Vicko Tomić, Ana Marušić","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2163632","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2163632","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Structures for and practices of research integrity (RI) and research ethics (RE) differ among countries. This study analyzed the processes and structures for RI and RE in Europe, following the framework developed at the World Conferences on Research Integrity. We present RI and RE Country Report Cards for 16 European countries, which included the information on RI and RE structures, processes and outcomes. While some of the countries are front-runners when it comes to RI and RE, with well-established and continually developing policies and structures, others are just starting their journey in RI and RE. Although RI and RE contextual divergences must be taken into account, a level of harmonization among the countries is necessary so that researchers working in the European area can similarly handle RI and RE issues and have similar expectations regardless of the organization in which they work. RI and RE Country Report Cards can be a tool to monitor, compare, and strengthen RE and integrity across countries through empowerment and inspiration by examples of good practices and developed systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"620-654"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10533006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation.","authors":"Jonathan R Kasstan, Geoff Pearson","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2382736","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Qualitative Humanities research is perturbed by ethical review processes that routinely invoke epistemological assumptions skewed towards positivistic or deductive research, giving rise to several concerns, including increased risk aversion by University Research Ethics Committees (URECs) and the evaluation of qualitative research designs according to STEM standards.</p><p><strong>Methods/materials: </strong>This paper presents findings from an AHRC-funded research network built to better understand how research ethics frameworks and processes might be reformed to more appropriately fit ethically challenging qualitative methodologies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There remains dissatisfaction with the current processes for awarding ethical approval and the subsequent management of ethical dimensions of projects. In spite of recent developments, UREC frameworks remain seriously flawed, with a wide divergence in the quality of expertise, procedures, and practices, leading to inconsistency in ethical approval awards.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These factors downgrade UK Higher Education research power in the Humanities and undermine our commitments to the researched. We propose a series of recommendations for reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141789784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications.","authors":"Parul Khurana, Kiran Sharma, Ziya Uddin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2379906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2379906","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141749600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The punishment intensity for research misconduct and its related factors: An exploratory study on hospitals in Mainland China.","authors":"Gengyan Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2377723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2377723","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies have found that factors such as gender and academic positions do not influence the severity of administrative actions taken by institutions. However, this study provides partly inconsistent evidence. It focuses on incidents of research misconduct in hospitals across Mainland China and explores factors related to punishment using a large cross-sectional dataset (<i>N</i> = 815). Regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between authorship order and the punishment intensity (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Under specific conditions, there was a significant correlation between the professional title (senior) and punishment intensity (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and an interaction between professional title and types of research misbehavior. Further analysis of simple effects showed that, in cases of fabrication and falsification, and combinations of multiple research misbehavior, researchers with senior titles received significantly lighter punishments compared to those with junior, intermediate, and associate senior titles (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The study unveils the potential accountability patterns (collective accountability and tiered punishment) that may be adopted by hospitals in Mainland China, as well as the challenges faced in ensuring fairness, emphasizing the importance of independent investigative bodies for incidents of research misconduct, and advocating for fairness as a priority in governance of research misconduct.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141617516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
David Mills, Sefika Mertkan, Gulen Onurkan Aliusta
{"title":"'Special issue-ization' as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the \"big five\" and the risks for research integrity.","authors":"David Mills, Sefika Mertkan, Gulen Onurkan Aliusta","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2374567","DOIUrl":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2374567","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The exponential growth of MDPI and Frontiers over the last decade has been powered by their extensive use of special issues. The \"special issue-ization\" of journal publishing has been particularly associated with new publishers and seen as potentially \"questionable.\" Through an extended case-study analysis of three journals owned by one of the \"big five\" commercial publishers, this paper explores the risks that this growing use of special issues presents to research integrity. All three case-study journals show sudden and marked changes in their publication patterns. An analysis of special issue editorials and retraction notes was used to determine the specifics of special issues and reasons for retractions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Findings suggest that these commercial publishers are also promoting special issues and that article retractions are often connected to guest editor manipulation. This underlies the threat that \"special issue-ization\" presents to research integrity. It highlights the risks posed by the guest editor model, and the importance of extending this analysis to long-existing commercial publishers. The paper emphasizes the need for an in-depth examination of the underlying structures and political economy of science, and a discussion of the rise of gaming and manipulation within higher education systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2024-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141555855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}