Questionable research practices (QRP) are believed to be widespread, but empirical assessments are generally restricted to a few types of practices. Furthermore, conceptual confusion is rife with use and prevalence of QRPs often being confused as the same quantity. We present the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. We survey perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among 3,402 researchers in Denmark and 1,307 in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Results reveal remarkably similar response patterns among Danish and international respondents (τ = 0.85). Self-reported use indicates whether respondents have used a QRP in recent publications. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. Median use is three out of nine QRP items. Self-reported prevalence reflects the frequency of use. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to self-reported use. Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs. Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence. Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

The significance of the ethical review process in human-based research undertakings cannot be overemphasized as it is necessary to uphold ethical standards and protect participants. However, the review process per se can act as a bottleneck, potentially hindering research progress and leading to academic dishonesty. The present work explores the benefits and challenges of ethical review, emphasizing issues like intellectual theft, forced authorship, and the stifling of independent researchers. Proposed solutions include leveraging previously approved designs, empowering experienced professors for clearance, establishing panels of researchers, creating voluntary ethical approval offices, utilizing private consultancy offices, and establishing a transnational ethical clearance authority. In conclusion, this work stresses the importance of finding mechanisms to streamline the ethical review process while maintaining ethical standards to foster integrity in research and combat academic dishonesty.

Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.
Actualmente han proliferado una gran cantidad de revistas depredadoras, cuyo fin es obtener ganancias fraudulentas mediante la promesa de la publicación rápida de trabajos científicos, sin cumplir con los servicios de una revisión de calidad. Estas editoriales han logrado copiar los modelos de las revistas con acceso abierto, por lo que cada vez son más difíciles de identificar, aunado a que muchas de ellas se han abierto espacios en los índices más importantes de las revistas científicas, como Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, entre otros. Estas editoriales defraudan no solo a los autores de las investigaciones que intentan publicar sino también a los lectores y al público en general con publicaciones que no han sido debidamente revisadas y evaluadas por un sistema de pares o expertos académicos. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es dar a conocer algunas de las prácticas más comunes de las revistas depredadoras para que toda persona interesada en el proceso editorial, ya sea como autor, editor o lector, tenga los elementos para identificar estas revistas fraudulentas y esta mala práctica en el proceso editorial.

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

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。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and perception of scientific misconduct in infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM), as reported by the ID/CM community.
METHODS: An anonymous online European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases survey circulated among society members from October 2023 to June 2024; the questionnaire included data on participants\' views on their own and their colleagues\' scientific misconduct in the last 5 years.
RESULTS: The survey received 220 responses. Responders were 73% ID physicians, 52% men, 56% aged 35-54 years, and represented 48 countries, mainly European (126 participants). The vast majority of participants (78%) reported that they did not personally commit scientific misconduct, whereas 54% reported witnessing misconduct by colleagues in their field. The most commonly committed misconduct by both responders and their colleagues was misconduct of authorship rules, 14% and 41%, respectively. Overall, 18% reported witnessing misleading reporting and 14% reported witnessing nonaccurate reporting of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the majority (>60%) of responders reported high confidence in the integrity of published work in the field of ID/CM. Approximately one-third of responders were not aware of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases ethics advisory committee as an authority to which members can report misconduct.
CONCLUSIONS: Scientific misconduct, mostly related to violation of authorship rules, seems to be common in ID/CM. Efforts to improve scientific integrity should be made to keep trust in the scientific process.

暂无摘要。

Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.