Scientific misconduct

src: undsci.berkeley.edu

Scientific violations are violations of ethical conduct codes of scientific conduct and ethical conduct in the publication of professional scientific research. The Lancet review of Scientific Abnormalities Treatment in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definition: (reproduced in COPE Report 1999).

• Danish definition: "A major intention or omission that leads to the creation of scientific messages or false credits or emphasis given to scientists"
• Swedish definition: "The intention of [al] distortion of the research process by the manufacture of data, text, hypotheses, or methods of form or publication of other researchers' texts, or distortions of the research process by other means."

The consequences of scientific misconduct can damage the perpetrators and audience of the journal and for each individual who exposes it. In addition there are public health implications inherent in the promotion of medical or other interventions based on false or false research findings.

Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions reporting to the Department of Health and Humanity's Research Integrity Office showed some form of scientific error. But ORI will only investigate allegations of inaccuracy in which research is funded by a federal grant. They routinely monitor the research publications for red flags and their investigations are subject to restriction laws. Other private organizations such as the Medical Journal Editor Committee (COJE) can only supervise their own members.

The validity of methods and the work of scientific papers are often investigated in journal clubs. In this place, members can decide among themselves with the help of their peers if the ethical standards of scientific papers are met.

Video Scientific misconduct

Motivation for scientific misconduct

According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there is a motivator for scientists to make mistakes, which are briefly summarized here.

Career pressures

Science is still a very powerful career-driven discipline. Scientists rely on good reputations to receive ongoing support and funding, and good reputations rely heavily on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Therefore, there is a strong need to "publish or perish". Obviously, this can motivate desperate (or very hungry) scientists to make results.

Ease of fabrication

In many scientific fields, the results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, obscured by noise, artifacts, and other foreign data. That means that even if a scientist falsifies data, they can expect to get away with it - or at least claim to be innocent if the outcome goes against someone else in the same field. No "scientific police" are trained to fight scientific evil; all investigations are done by scientists but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It's relatively easy to cheat though it's hard to know exactly how many scientists are making the data.

Maps Scientific misconduct

Forms of scientific error

The US National Science Foundation establishes three types of research errors: fabrication, forgery, and plagiarism.

• Fabrication is composing results and recording or reporting them. This is sometimes referred to as "drylabbing". The smaller form of fabrication is where reference is included to give an argument for the emergence of a wide acceptance, but is actually false, and/or does not support the argument.
• Counterfeiting is manipulating research materials, tools, or processes or altering or omitting data or results so that research is not accurately represented in the research records.
• Plagiarism is the use of ideas, processes, results, or the words of others without giving appropriate credit. One form is the use of ideas and results from others, and the publication to make it appear the author has done all the work on which the data was obtained. A subset is a plagiarism quote - a deliberate or inadvertent failure to credit other inventor or earlier accurately, giving an improper priority impression. This is also known as, "amnesia quote", "abandonment syndrome" and "bibliographic negligence". Arguably, this is the most common type of scientific offense. Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether the author intentionally ignores quotations that are highly relevant or have no knowledge of previous work. Inventory credits can also be inadvertently transferred from the original inventor to a more well-known researcher. This is a special case of the effect of Matthew.
  • Plagiarism-Fabrication - taking unrelated figures from unrelated publications and reproducing exactly in a new publication, claiming that it represents new data.
  • Self-plagiarism - or multiple publications of the same content with different titles and/or in different journals is sometimes also considered an error; scientific journals explicitly ask the author not to do this. This is referred to as "salami" (ie many identical slices) in the jargon of a medical journal editor. According to some editors, this includes publishing the same article in different languages.

Another type of research error is also recognized:

• Rewrites - a phenomenon in which someone other than the author named (s) makes a major contribution. Typically, this is done to conceal contributions from authors with conflicts of interest.
• Conversely, research errors are not limited to authorship, but also include the act of authoring those who have not made substantial contributions to the study. This is done by senior researchers who move their way to inexperienced junior research papers as well as others who pile up authorship in an effort to ensure publication. This is much more difficult to prove because of the lack of consistency in defining "authorship" or "substantial contribution".

Photo manipulation

Compared to other forms of scientific error, image fraud (image manipulation to distort meaning) is of special interest because it can often be detected by external parties. In 2006, the Journal of Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detect photo manipulation in papers under consideration for publication. This is in response to the increased use of programs such as Adobe Photoshop by scientists, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then more publishers, including the Nature Publishing Group, have instituted similar tests and require authors to minimize and determine the extent of photo manipulation when a manuscript is submitted for publication. However, there is little evidence to suggest that such tests are strictly applied. One Nature paper published in 2009 has been reported to contain about 20 separate fraud cases.

Although the type of permissible manipulation can rely heavily on the type of experiment presented and also differs from one journal to another, the following manipulations are generally not allowed:

• combine different images to represent one experiment
• change the brightness and contrast only part of the image
• any changes that conceal information, although regarded as material, include:
  • change the brightness and contrast to leave only the strongest signal
  • use the clone tool to hide information
• only shows a small portion of the photo so that additional information is not visible

src: www.pnas.org

Responsibility of the author and coauthor

All authors of scientific publications are expected to have made reasonable efforts to examine the findings submitted to academic journals for publication.

Submission of scientific findings simultaneously to more than one journal or publication of duplicate findings is usually regarded as an error, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine 1967-1977, Franz Ingelfinger.

Guest authors (where authors are declared in the absence of involvement, also known as reward authors) and ghost writers (where actual authors are not listed as authors) are generally regarded as forms of research error. In some cases false co-authors have been accused of inappropriate behavior or missteps for failing to verify reports written by others or by commercial sponsors. Examples include the case of Gerald Schatten who co-authored Hwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named guest author of a paper made by Malcolm Pearce, (Chamberlain freed from collusion in Pearce's scam) - and co-author Jan Hendrik SchÃÆ'¶n in Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include the case of Charles Nemeroff, who later became editor-in-chief of the Neuropsychopharmacology, and a well-documented case involving Actonel medicine.

Authors are expected to keep all study data for examination later even after publication. Failure to save data can be regarded as an error. Some scientific journals require that authors provide information to enable the reader to determine whether the author may have a commercial or non-commercial interest conflict. Authors are also usually asked to provide information about ethical aspects of research, especially where research involves human or animal participants or the use of biological materials. Provision of misinformation to a journal may be considered an offense. Financial pressure on the university has encouraged this type of offense. The majority of cases of alleged violations involving conflicts of interest or failures not disclosed by the authors have seen scientific data involving collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies (Nemeroff, Blumsohn).

src: mbio.asm.org

Responsibility of research institute

In general, determining whether a person is guilty by mistake requires a detailed investigation by an academic institution that employs an individual. Such investigations require a detailed and rigorous process and can be very costly. Furthermore, the more senior individuals suspected, the more likely the conflict of interest will jeopardize the investigation. In many countries (with the exception of the United States), the acquisition of funds on the basis of counterfeit data is not a violation of the law and therefore there is no regulator to monitor investigations for alleged violations of the research. Therefore, universities have little incentive to investigate allegations in a strong way, or act on the findings of the investigation if they justify the allegations.

Well-publicized cases illustrate the potential role played by senior academics at research institutions in hiding scientific errors. The internal investigation of King's College (London) suggests the research findings of one of their researchers to be "most unreliable, and in many cases false" but the college does not take action, such as revoking relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring. Only 10 years later, when a completely separate form of violation by the same individual was being investigated by the General Medical Council, the internal report was revealed.

In a more recent case, an internal investigation at the National Cell Science Center (NCCS), Pune stipulates that there is evidence of infringement by Dr. Gopal Kundu, but an external committee was later organized that dismissed the allegations, and the NCCS issued a memorandum freeing the authors of all alleged offenses. Not affected by the release of NCCS, the relevant journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) drew paper based on its own analysis.

src: i.ytimg.com

Responsibility of an uninvolved scientific colleague

Some academics believe that scientific peers who suspect scientific misconceptions should consider taking informal action on their own, or reporting their concerns. This question is very important because many studies show that it is very difficult for people to act or move forward when they see unacceptable behavior, unless they have help from their organization. "Easy-to-use guidelines," and the existence of secret organizational ombudsmen can help people who are unsure about what to do, or fear the adverse consequences of their preaching.

src: image.slidesharecdn.com

Journal responsibilities

Journals are responsible for maintaining research records and therefore have an important role in dealing with alleged violations. This is acknowledged by the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE) which has issued clear guidelines on forms (eg retractions) that are of concern to the research records to be taken.

• The COPE Guidelines state that journal editors should consider revoking the publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable either as a result of an error (eg fabrication data) or an honest error â € < eg miscalculations or experimental errors). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of excessive publication, plagiarism and unethical research.
• The journal editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if they receive inconclusive proof of research or publication mistakes by the author, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors will not investigate the case, they believe that the investigation into alleged infringement which is related to the publication yet, or will not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but the assessment will not be available for any length of time.
• The journal editor should consider issuing corrections if a small portion of reliable publications are proven to be misleading (mainly due to an honest error), or the author/contributors list is wrong (ie eligible authors have been omitted or someone who does not meet the authorship criteria entered) ).

Evidence emerges in 2012 that case study journals where there is strong evidence of possible errors, with issues potentially affecting most of the findings, often fail to issue a statement of concern or relate to the host institution so that an investigation can be made.. In one case, the Journal of Clinical Oncology issued Corrections despite strong evidence that the original paper was invalid. In other cases, Nature allows Corrigendum to be published despite clear evidence of image fraud. The subsequent retraction of the paper requires action from an independent whistleblower.

The cases of Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii in anesthesiology focus on the role played by journals in perpetuating scientific deception and how they can cope. In the case of Boldt, Editor-in-Chief 18 specialist journals (generally anesthesia and intensive care) made a joint statement on 88 published clinical trials conducted without the approval of the Ethics Committee. In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200 papers, the journal Anesthesia & amp; Analgesia, which publishes 24 papers belonging to Fujii, has accepted that its handling is inadequate. Following the publication of the Letter to the Editor of Kranke and colleagues in April 2000, together with non-specific responses from Dr. Fujii, no follow-up on suspicion of data manipulation and no request for institutional review. Fujii Research. Anesthesia & amp; Analgesia went on to publish 11 additional texts by Dr. Fujii after 2000 accusations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating in March 2012 that his subsequent submissions to the Journal by Dr. Fujii should not be published without first checking fraud allegations. In April 2012 Shafer leads a group of editors to write a joint statement, in the form of a public-provided ultimatum, to the large number of academic institutions in which Fujii has been hired, offering opportunities to these institutions to prove their integrity. of most papers allegedly cheated.

src: www.sciencemag.org

Consequences for science

The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notification it receives, and how long it is not detected. In the case of counterfeit evidence, the consequences may be very broad, with others working to confirm (or deny) false findings, or with a distorted research agenda to deal with evidence of fraud. Piltdown Man Fraud is a case in point: The importance of bona fide fossils discovered has been silenced for decades because they disagree with the Piltdown Man and the preconceived notion that the fake fossils are supported. In addition, the eminent paleontologist, Arthur Smith Woodward, spends time in Piltdown every year until he dies, trying to find more of the remaining Piltdown Man. Deviation of resources makes others take fossils that are actually more serious and delay the attainment of a correct understanding of human evolution. (The Taung Child, which should have been the death knell for the view that the human brain evolved first, was even treated very critically because of its disagreement with the evidence of Piltdown Man.)

In the case of Prof. Don Poldermans, errors occur in the trial report of treatment to prevent death and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing surgery. Testing reports are relied upon to publish guidelines that apply over the years in North America and Europe.

In the case of Dr. Alfred Steinschneider, two decades and tens of millions of dollars of research disappeared while trying to find an elusive relationship between baby sleep apnea, which Steinschneider said he had observed and recorded in his laboratory, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). , which he claimed was a precursor. The cover was detonated in 1994, 22 years after the 1972 Pediatrics Steinschneider papers claimed such a relationship, when Waneta Hoyt, the mother of the patient in the paper, was arrested, indicted and convicted in 5 seconds. -the two murders of the stifling death of her five children. While in itself quite badly, the paper, probably written as an attempt to save the lives of babies, ironically eventually used as a defense by suspected parents in some of the deaths of their own children in the case of MÃÆ'¼nchausen syndrome by proxy. The 1972 Paper Pediatrics is quoted in 404 temporary papers and is still listed in Pubmed without comment.

src: forbetterscience.files.wordpress.com

Consequences for those who expose violations

The potentially heavy consequences for individuals who are known to have been involved in misbehavior also reflect the institution that hosts or hires them and also the participants in any peer assessment process that has allowed the publication of the research in question. This means that various actors in any case can have the motivation to suppress evidence or suggestion of any offense. People who expose such cases, commonly called whistleblowers, can find themselves open to retaliation in a number of different ways. These negative consequences for violation exposure have encouraged the development of whistle blower charters - designed to protect those who raised concerns. A whistleblower is almost always alone in their battle - their career becomes completely dependent on a decision about alleged offense. If the allegations are proved wrong, their careers are completely destroyed, but even in the case of a positive decision, the fact-finding career can be questioned: the reputation of "troublemakers" will prevent many companies from hiring them. There is no international body where a whistleblower can give their attention. If a university fails to investigate fraudulent allegations or provide false inquiries to save their reputation, the fact-holder has no right of appeal.

src: slideplayer.com

Exposure of fraudulent data

With the advent of the internet, there are now several tools available to help detect plagiarism and some publications in the biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers at Dr. laboratories. Harold Garner at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas is DÃÆ' Â © jÃÆ' vu, an open access database containing several thousand examples of duplicate publications. All entries in the database are found through the use of the eTBLAST text data mining algorithm, also created in Dr. laboratories. Garner. The creation of DÃÆ' Â © jÃÆ' vu and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained therein have sparked much discussion in the scientific community on issues such as ethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual property rights. Studies on this database have been published in journals such as Nature and Science , among others.

Other tools that can be used to detect fraudulent data include error analysis. Measurements generally have a small number of errors, and repeated measurements of the same item will generally result in little difference in readings. These differences can be analyzed, and follow certain known mathematical and statistical properties. If the data set seems too loyal to the hypothesis, ie the number of errors that usually in the measurement does not appear, the conclusion can be drawn that the data may have been falsified. Erroneous analysis alone is usually not sufficient to prove that data has been fabricated or created, but may provide necessary supporting evidence to confirm suspicion of infringement.

src: d1w9csuen3k837.cloudfront.net

Share data

Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggested, "While reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and costly, having such a policy would make writers more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific or fraudulent misconduct."

src: slideplayer.com

Critical individual cases

Andrew Wakefield, who claims the link between MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease. He was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned by the British Medical Council after an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.

src: www.sciencemag.org

See also

src: slideplayer.com

References

• Claus Emmeche. "The old and latest example of scientific fraud" (PowerPoint) . Retrieved 2007-05-18 .
• Patricia Keith-Spiegel, Joan Sieber, and Gerald P. Koocher (November, 2010). Responding to Misleading Research: A Friendly User Guide .

src: dr-monsrs.net

External links

• Media related to Scientific error in Wikimedia Commons
• Checklist of publication ethics (PDF) (for routine use during submission of manuscripts to scientific journals)

Source of the article : Wikipedia