Academic integrity is fundamental to effective education and learning yet cheating continues to occur in diverse forms within the higher education sector. It is essential that students are educated about, and understand the importance of, good academic practice. Strict standards of academic integrity help to ensure that knowledge is acquired in an honest and ethical manner, creating fairness and equity for students, ultimately enriching the student experience at university and the wider society\'s trust in the value of university education. This literature review synthesizes the many varied reasons why students cheat, as presented in a large body of existing literature. We then turn our attention to what we can do as educators to help reduce the rates of academic misconduct. Factors influencing the propensity of students to cheat are diverse but relatively well understood. Whilst policing and applying appropriate punishments should be part of institutional responses to academic misconduct, it is clear that this is only part of the solution. We emphasize the need for a much broader range of proactive activities to be brought to bear. Many of these are educational in nature and should have benefits for students, staff and institutions beyond discouraging academic misconduct. Resource implication should not be a barrier to their implementation.

The present study explores the major reasons for committing plagiarism, as reported in published literature. One hundred sixty-six peer-reviewed articles, which were retrieved from the Scopus database, were carefully examined to find out the research studies conducted to explore the most common reasons for academic cheating among students and researchers in different disciplines in higher education. An analysis of collected literature reveals that 19 studies were conducted to identify the perceived reasons of committing plagiarism. Four studies with similar constructs of perceived reasons of committing plagiarism, namely busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness, easy accessibility of electronic resources, poor knowledge in research writing and correct citation and lack of serious penalty, were conducted. The pooled mean and standard deviation of the four studies reveal that easy accessibility of electronic resources (Mean = 3.6, SD = 0.81), unawareness of instructions (Mean = 3.0, SD = 0.89), and busy schedule, overload of homework and laziness (Mean = 2.89, SD = 1.0) are important perceived reasons for committing plagiarism. The study findings could help create an effective intervention and a robust anti-plagiarism policy for academic institutions, administrators, and policymakers in detecting academic dishonesty while emphasizing the value of integrity in academic pursuit.

This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review.
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software.
Of the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores.
There was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to assess the profile of retracted health sciences articles authored by individuals affiliated with academic institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We systematically searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Medline/Ovid, Scielo, and LILACS). We included articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2022 that had at least one author with an institutional affiliation in LAC. Data were collected on the year of publication, study design, authors\' countries of origin, number of authors, subject matter of the manuscript, scientific journals of publication, retraction characteristics, and reasons for retraction. We included 147 articles, the majority being observational studies (41.5%). The LAC countries with the highest number of retractions were Brazil (n = 69), Colombia (n = 16), and Mexico (n = 15). The areas of study with the highest number of retractions were infectology (n = 21) and basic sciences (n = 15). A retraction label was applied to 89.1% of the articles, 70.7% were retracted by journal editors, and 89.1% followed international retraction guidelines. The primary reasons for retraction included errors in procedures or data collection (n = 39), inconsistency in results or conclusions (n = 37), plagiarism (n = 21), and suspected scientific fraud (n = 19). In conclusion, most retractions of scientific publications in health sciences in LAC adhered to international guidelines and were linked to methodological issues in execution and scientific misconduct. Efforts should be directed toward ensuring the integrity of scientific research in the field of health.

The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature.
A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted.
Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%).
The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

Chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) is a chatbot developed by OpenAI that answers questions in a human-like manner. ChatGPT is a GPT language model that understands and responds to natural language created using a transformer, which is a new artificial neural network algorithm first introduced by Google in 2017. ChatGPT can be used to identify research topics and proofread English writing and R scripts to improve work efficiency and optimize time. Attempts to actively utilize generative artificial intelligence (AI) are expected to continue in clinical settings. However, ChatGPT still has many limitations for widespread use in clinical research, owing to AI hallucination symptoms and its training data constraints. Researchers recommend avoiding scientific writing using ChatGPT in many traditional journals because of the current lack of originality guidelines and plagiarism of content generated by ChatGPT. Further regulations and discussions on these topics are expected in the future.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to assess the nature and prevalence of misconduct in self and nonself-reported biomedical research.
UNASSIGNED: A detailed review of previously conducted studies was conducted through PubMed Central, PubMed, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms: \"scientific misconduct,\" \"Publications,\" \"plagiarism,\" and \"authorship,\" and keywords: scientific misconduct, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and duplicate publication. MeSH terms and keywords were searched in combinations using Boolean operators \"AND\" and \"OR.\" Of 7771 articles that appeared in the search, 107 were selected for inspection. The articles were screened for their quality and inclusion criteria. Finally, 16 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Data analysis was conducted using an Open-Source, Open Meta Analyst, statistical software using the package \"metaphor.\"
UNASSIGNED: Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification were prevalent in most articles reviewed. The prevalence of research misconduct for plagiarism was 4.2% for self-reported and 27.9% for nonself-reported studies. Data fabrication was 4.5% in self-reported and 21.7% in nonself-reported studies. Data falsification was 9.7% in self-reported and 33.4% in nonself-reported studies, with significant heterogeneity.
UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis gives a pooled estimate of the misconduct in research done in biomedical fields such as medicine, dental, pharmacy, and others across the world. We found that there is an alarming rate of misconduct in recent nonself-reported studies, and they were higher than that in the self-reported studies.

The objective of retracting flawed publications is to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. Retractions in the dental literature have been on the rise in recent years. Hence, we aimed to review retracted articles related to dentistry.
A search was conducted of the MEDLINE database for retracted articles in the dental literature published between April 1, 1993 and March 31, 2020. The retracted articles and the notices of retraction were reviewed, and the findings are presented.
During the selected period, 143 articles were retracted. Redundant publication (n=50, 35%) was the most common reason for retraction, followed by plagiarism (n=43, 30.1%) and data manipulation (n=42, 29.4%). Around 70.6% (n=101) of retracted articles were original articles. Eight (5.6%) of the articles were single authored. The retracted articles have been cited by about 1300 publications, after the date of publication of the retraction notice. The gap between publication and retraction was longer for funded articles than for non-funded articles, and for articles retracted for data manipulation than for articles retracted for other types of misconduct. Twenty-one journals and nine authors retracted two or more papers. The majority of authors of retracted articles (224, 37%) were from India.
Our study showed that the retraction of publications due to misconduct such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, data manipulation is a matter of concern and calls for strict measures to curb the menace of research misconduct.

\"Paper mills\" are unethical outsourcing agencies proficient in fabricating fraudulent manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals. In earlier years, the activity of such companies involved plagiarism, but their processes have gained complexity, involving the fabrication of images and fake results. The objective of this study is to examine the main features of retracted paper mills\' articles registered in the Retraction Watch database, from inception to the present, analyzing the number of articles per year, their number of citations, and their authorship network. Eligibility criteria for inclusion: retracted articles in any language due to paper mill activity. Retraction letters, notes, and notices, for exclusion. We collected the associated citations and the journals\' impact factors of the retracted papers from Web of Science (Clarivate) and performed a data network analysis using VOSviewer software. This scoping review complies with PRISMA 2020 statement and main extensions. After a thorough analysis of the data, we identified 325 retracted articles due to suspected operations published in 31 journals (with a mean impact factor of 3.1). These retractions have produced 3708 citations. Nearly all retracted papers have come from China. Journal\'s impact factor lower than 7, life sciences journals, cancer, and molecular biology topics were common among retracted studies. The rapid increase of retractions is highly challenging. Paper mills damage scientific research integrity, exacerbating fraud, plagiarism, fake images, and simulated results. Rheumatologists should be fully aware of this growing phenomenon.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the findings from literature regarding the prevalence of plagiarism and its various types, knowledge, and attitudes of students toward plagiarism, factors associated with plagiarism, and the applied interventions to decrease the incidence of plagiarism.
BACKGROUND: Plagiarism is a major form of academic dishonesty practiced by students at all educational levels.
BACKGROUND: Academic dishonesty was defined as any unauthorized help that adds to students\' formal academic performance. These dishonest behaviors can be categorized as falsifying information, hiding errors, collaborating with colleagues when not allowed, and plagiarism.
METHODS: Systematic search of databases was conducted in September 2021 to identify studies that discussed plagiarism in nursing studies. We included 31 studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 9,175 nursing students. The analysis was conducted using RevMan software.
RESULTS: Plagiarism was the most frequent academic misconduct among nursing students (practiced by 55.3%). Paraphrasing without referencing was the most practiced form (39.53%), while submitting others\' work without acknowledgment was the least one (9.61%). Most students were aware of the concept of plagiarism (80.8%) and had positive ethical attitudes toward it (88.26%). Plagiarism was negatively associated with age, parenting, and completing semester credits. However, it was positively correlated with average grades and liberal educators. Plagiarism was a significant predictor of clinical misconduct.
CONCLUSIONS: A gap in the students\' knowledge and skills were noticed. These gaps may be contributing to the high occurrence of plagiaristic acts, besides the unethical attitudes.
CONCLUSIONS: Plagiarism is a serious academic misconduct practice that can be associated with subsequent clinical misconduct. There is a need to fill the knowledge and skills gap, and to set effective policies.
CONCLUSIONS: In their attempts to eliminate plagiarism, nurse educators are encouraged to provide effective educational training and practical tasks, in order to fill the gaps in knowledge and skills. Additionally, implementing clear and effective punishment policies would prevent intentional plagiaristic acts. This would aid in introducing qualified nurses accountable for the health of patients.