OBJECTIVE: Are authors aware when they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in the medically assisted reproduction (MAR) field?
METHODS: A cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the citation pattern from corresponding authors who had cited a retracted article. A dataset of retracted articles in the MAR field was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch. A complete list of published articles that cited each retracted article was retrieved. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who had cited a retracted paper in their study.
RESULTS: The survey revealed a significant lack of awareness among authors, with 78.7% unaware that they had cited retracted articles. This lack of awareness was attributed to insufficient notification mechanisms within research databases and journals, alongside a reliance on previously stored copies of manuscripts. A notable finding was that reference checks were typically performed by a single author, with no instances of retraction concerns raised during the peer-review process. Only a small fraction (17.8%) of respondents reported verifying retraction notices on both journal websites and scientific databases.
CONCLUSIONS: Correcting publications that contain references which are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, but assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help to prevent errors.

The founders of PubPeer envisioned their website as an online form of a \"journal club\" that would facilitate post-publication peer review. Recently, PubPeer comments have led to a significant number of research misconduct proceedings - a development that could not have been anticipated when the current federal research misconduct regulations were developed two decades ago. Yet the number, frequency, and velocity of PubPeer comments identifying data integrity concerns, and institutional and government practices that treat all such comments as potential research misconduct allegations, have overwhelmed institutions and threaten to divert attention and resources away from other research integrity initiatives. Recent, high profile research misconduct cases accentuate the increasing public interest in research integrity and make it inevitable that the use of platforms such as PubPeer to challenge research findings will intensify. This article examines the origins of PubPeer and its central role in the modern era of online-based scouring of scientific publications for potential problems and outlines the challenges that institutions must manage in addressing issues identified on PubPeer. In conclusion, we discuss some potential enhancements to the investigatory process specified under federal regulations that could, if implemented, allow institutions to manage some of these challenges more efficiently.

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 (N = 815). Regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between authorship order and the punishment intensity (p < 0.05). Under specific conditions, there was a significant correlation between the professional title (senior) and punishment intensity (p = 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 (p < 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.

Researcher fraud is often easy and enticing in academic research, with little risk of detection. Cases of extensive fraud continue to occur. The amount of fraud that goes undetected is unknown and may be substantial. Three strategies for addressing researcher fraud are (a) retrospective investigations after allegations of fraud have been made, (b) sting operations that provide conclusive evidence of fraud as it occurs, and (c) data management practices that prevent the occurrence of fraud. Institutional and regulatory efforts to address researcher fraud have focused almost exclusively on the retrospective strategy. The retrospective approach is subject to controversy due to the limitations of post-hoc evidence in science, the difficulty in establishing who actually committed the fraud in some cases, the application of a legal standard of evidence that is much lower than the usual standards of evidence in science, and the lack of legal expertise by scientists investigating fraud. The retrospective strategy may be reliably effective primarily in cases of extensive, careless fraud. Sting operations can overcome these limitations and controversies, but are not feasible in many situations. Data management practices that are effective at preventing researcher fraud and unintentional errors are well-established in clinical trials regulated by government agencies, but appear to be largely unknown or unimplemented in most academic research. Established data management practices include: archiving secure copies of the raw data, audit trails, restricted access to the data and data collection processes, software validation, quality control checks, blinding, preregistration of data processing and analysis programs, and research audits that directly address fraud. Current discussions about data management in academic research focus on sharing data with little attention to practices that prevent intentional and unintentional errors. A designation or badge such as error-controlled data management could be established to indicate research that was conducted with data management practices that effectively address intentional and unintentional errors.

Research misconduct, broadly defined as acts of fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism, violate the value system of science, cost significant wastage of public resources, and in more extreme cases endanger research participants or members of the society at large. Determination of culpability in research misconduct requires establishment of intent on the part of the respondent or perpetrator. However, \"intent\" is a state of mind, and its perception is subjective, unequivocal evidence for which would not be as readily established compared to the objective evidence available for the acts themselves. Here, we explore the concept of \"intent\" in research misconduct, how it is framed in criminological/legal terms, and narrated from a psychological perspective. Based on these, we propose a framework whereby lines of questioning and investigation, as defined by legislative terms and informed by the models and tools of psychology, could help in establishing a preponderance of evidence for culpable intent. Such a framework could be useful in research misconduct adjudications and in delivering sanctions.

OBJECTIVE: Retraction is intended to be a mechanism to correct the published body of knowledge when necessary due to fraudulent, fatally flawed, or ethically unacceptable publications. However, the success of this mechanism requires that retracted publications be consistently identified as such and that retraction notices contain sufficient information to understand what is being retracted and why. Our study investigated how clearly and consistently retracted publications in public health are being presented to researchers.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, using 441 retracted research publications in the field of public health. Records were retrieved for each of these publications from 11 resources, while retraction notices were retrieved from publisher websites and full-text aggregators. The identification of the retracted status of the publication was assessed using criteria from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the National Library of Medicine. The completeness of the associated retraction notices was assessed using criteria from Committee on Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch.
RESULTS: Two thousand eight hundred forty-one records for retracted publications were retrieved, of which less than half indicated that the article had been retracted. Less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all resources through which they were available. Within single resources, if and how retracted publications were identified varied. Retraction notices were frequently incomplete, with no notices meeting all the criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The observed inconsistencies and incomplete notices pose a threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and highlight the need to better align with existing best practices to ensure more effective and transparent dissemination of information on retractions.

暂无摘要。

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

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.

Investigating research misconduct allegations against top officials can create significant conflicts of interest (COIs) for universities that may require changes to existing oversight frameworks. One way of addressing some of these challenges is to develop policies and procedures that specifically address investigation of allegations of misconduct involving top university officials. Steps can also be taken now regardless of whether such a body is created. Federal and university research misconduct regulations and policies may need to be revised to provide institutions with clearer guidance on how to deal with misconduct allegations against top officials. For their part, institutions may benefit from proactively creating and transparently disclosing their own processes for independent investigation of research misconduct allegations against senior officials.