OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed.
METHODS: Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures.
RESULTS: First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors\' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors\' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry.

BACKGROUND: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals\' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS).
METHODS: This was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure.
RESULTS: We evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.

This Viewpoint discusses the challenges involved with secondary health care data collection vs primary data collection and provides a list of suggested data checks before registration of a study protocol using secondary data.

In 1931, Hermann J. Muller\'s postdoctoral student, George D. Snell (Nobel Prize recipient--1980) initiated research to replicate with mice Muller\'s X-ray-induced mutational findings with fruit flies. Snell failed to induce the two types of mutations of interest, based on fly data (sex-linked lethals/recessive visible mutations) even though the study was well designed, used large doses of X-rays, and was published in Genetics. These findings were never cited by Muller, and the Snell paper (Snell, Genetics 20:545-567, 1935) did not cite the 1927 Muller paper (Muller, Science 66:84, 1927). This situation raises questions concerning how Snell wrote the paper (e.g., ignoring the significance of not providing support for Muller\'s findings in a mammal). The question may be raised whether professional pressures were placed upon Snell to downplay the significance of his findings, which could have negatively impacted the career of Muller and the LNT theory. While Muller would receive worldwide attention, and receive the Nobel Prize in 1946 \"for the discovery that mutations can be induced by X-rays,\" Snell\'s negative mutation data were almost entirely ignored by his contemporary and subsequent radiation genetics/mutation researchers. This raises questions concerning how the apparent lack of interest in Snell\'s negative findings helped Muller professionally, including his success in using his fruit fly data to influence hereditary and cancer risk assessment and to obtain the Nobel Prize.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of numerous scientific outputs, growing attention is paid to research misconduct. This study aimed to investigate knowledge, attitudes and practices about research misconduct among medical residents in southwest China.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in southwest China from November 2022 through March 2023. The links to the questionnaire were sent to the directors of the teaching management department in 17 tertiary hospitals. Answers were collected and analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the factors associated with research misconduct among residents.
RESULTS: 6200 residents were enrolled in the study, and 88.5% of participants attended a course on research integrity, but 53.7% of participants admitted to having committed at least one form of research misconduct. Having a postgraduate or above, publishing papers as the first author or corresponding author, attending a course on research integrity, lower self-reported knowledge on research integrity and lower perceived consequences for research misconduct were positively correlated to research misconduct. Serving as a primary investigator for a research project was negatively associated with research misconduct. Most residents (66.3%) agreed that the reason for research misconduct is that researchers lack research ability.
CONCLUSIONS: The high self-reported rate of research misconduct among residents in southwest China underscores a universal necessity for enhancing research integrity courses in residency programs. The ineffectiveness of current training in China suggests a possible global need for reevaluating and improving educational approaches to foster research integrity. Addressing these challenges is imperative not only for the credibility of medical research and patient care in China but also for maintaining the highest ethical standards in medical education worldwide. Policymakers, educators, and healthcare leaders on a global scale should collaborate to establish comprehensive strategies that ensure the responsible conduct of research, ultimately safeguarding the integrity of medical advancements and promoting trust in scientific endeavors across borders.

This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers\' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.

We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct.

The study aimed to examine whether the use of words related to different moral foundations can predict the perceived severity of research misconduct. We gave two groups of participants, undergraduate medical students, the same hypothetical scenarios of research misconduct cases containing words related to different aspects of morality, and asked them to assess how inappropriate the described behavior was. Students ranked the described behaviors differently by the inappropriateness of the behavior, but the group wording was not a significant predictor of appropriateness. The reasons for the ranking were not related to any standardized procedures for research integrity but were related to the moral assessment of the students, which was assessed using qualitative approach. The results of this study implicate that personal moral views are an important part in research integrity training.

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.

Background: Research integrity has obtained much attention in research communities, but also in the general public. To improve research integrity is difficult as it involves complex systems of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cohorts of PhD candidates at one faculty (of medicine) over time and compare this to finished PhDs of the same cohorts. Material and method: Researchers (n  =  186) awarded the degree PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and actions related to scientific dishonesty. 94 responded (50.5%). The results were compared with results among first-year PhD candidates who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010-20 (n  =  536) and to those who finished PhDs in 2016 (n  =  86). Results: For the years 2010-2020 1.1% of the PhD candidates report to have engaged in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 0.9% report to have presented results in a misleading way. 2.3% report that they know of persons at their department who have engaged in FFP the last 12 months. In total 1.5% report to have experienced pressure to engage in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 2.1% report to have experienced pressure to present results in a misleading way. On average 12.8% report to have been exposed to unethical pressure concerning inclusion or ordering of authors during the last 12 months, and 28.8% report to have knowledge about their department\'s written policies about research integrity. While some attitudes improve over the years, attitudes in general are not much changed from 2010-2020. None of the PhDs that received a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 reported to have engaged in FFT or having experienced pressure to do so.1.1% experienced pressure to present results in other misleading ways, while 26.6% of respondents had experienced unethical pressure in relation to authorship during the course of the PhD fellowship. 4.3% knew about someone at their department who had presented results in a misleading manner. Some attitudes were not in line with traditional conceptions of research integrity, but most agreed that their research environment displayed research integrity. Conclusion: This long-term follow up study shows that few PhD-candidates report to engage in severe scientific misconduct, that they experience little pressure to do so, and with some exceptions, attitudes in in line with good research integrity. However, pressure in relation to authorship is relatively common. There is some improvement in research integrity from PhD candidates to recently finished PhDs, but in general research integrity is stable over time.