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.

暂无摘要。

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in scientific research has significantly enhanced efficiency and accuracy but also introduced new forms of academic misconduct, such as data fabrication and text plagiarism using AI algorithms. These practices jeopardize research integrity and can mislead scientific directions. This study addresses these challenges, underscoring the need for the academic community to strengthen ethical norms, enhance researcher qualifications, and establish rigorous review mechanisms. To ensure responsible and transparent research processes, we recommend the following specific key actions: Development and enforcement of comprehensive AI research integrity guidelines that include clear protocols for AI use in data analysis and publication, ensuring transparency and accountability in AI-assisted research. Implementation of mandatory AI ethics and integrity training for researchers, aimed at fostering an in-depth understanding of potential AI misuses and promoting ethical research practices. Establishment of international collaboration frameworks to facilitate the exchange of best practices and development of unified ethical standards for AI in research. Protecting research integrity is paramount for maintaining public trust in science, making these recommendations urgent for the scientific community consideration and action.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction.
METHODS: Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%).
CONCLUSIONS: In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.

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.

As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China\'s largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the \"police patrol\" and \"fire alarm\" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.

Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines\' publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.

Despite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents.
A total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%) and no prompt (5.48%). The median M (interquartile range [IQR]) of citations in retractions in neurology was 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with an M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with an M (IQR) of 5.127 (3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%).
The number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.

暂无摘要。

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars that were retracted for diverse reasons from the Retraction Watch database, so as to provide a reference to publishing-related papers. Methods: The Retraction Watch database was retrieved for retracted papers in the field of global liver disease published by Chinese scholars from March 1, 2008 to January 28, 2021. The regional distribution, source journals, reasons for retraction, publication and retraction times, and others were analyzed. Results: A total of 101 retracted papers that were distributed across 21 provinces/cities were retrieved. Zhejiang area (n = 17) had the most retracted papers, followed by Shanghai (n = 14), and Beijing (n = 11). The vast majority were research papers (n = 95). The journal PLoS One had the highest number of retracted papers. In terms of time distribution, 2019 (n = 36) had the most retracted papers. 23 papers, accounting for 8.3% of all retractions, were retracted owing to journal or publisher concerns. Liver cancer (34%), liver transplantation (16%), hepatitis (14%), and others were the main areas of retracted papers. Conclusion: Chinese scholars have a large number of retracted articles in the field of global liver diseases. A journal or publisher chooses to retract a manuscript after investigating and discovering more flawed problems, which, however, require further support, revision, and supervision from the editorial and academic circles.
目的： 分析Retraction Watch数据库中因不同原因撤销的中国学者在肝病领域发表的国际科技论文被撤稿的特征，为我国学者发表相关论文提供参考。 方法： 检索Retraction Watch数据库自2008年3月1日—2021年1月28日中国学者在全球发表的肝病类论文被撤销的资料，就相关撤销论文的地区分布、来源期刊、撤销原因、发表时间及撤销时间等进行分析。 结果： 共检索到101篇撤稿论文，分布在21个省/市，浙江地区（n = 17）撤销数最多，上海（n = 14）次之，其次是北京（n = 11）。大部分为研究性论文（n = 95），撤销论文数量最多的期刊是PloS One。从时间分布来看，2019年撤销的论文最多（n = 36）。因期刊或出版商问题被撤销论文数量最多，有23篇，占8.3%。撤销论文领域主要是肝癌（34%）、肝移植（16%）、肝炎（14%）和其他。 结论： 中国学者在全球肝病领域被撤稿文章较多，期刊或出版商调查后发现问题而选择撤稿较为严重，尚需编辑界和学术界进一步加强审核监督。.