图表数据学术不端案例调研与防范研究

【目的】 研究科技论文图表数据中的学术不端基本类型和表现特征,探讨期刊编辑部的具体识别和防范措施。【方法】 以PubPeer网站和相关文献中的真实事件为调研样例,总结图表数据学术不端的类型和表现特征,针对以上类型提出对应的甄别和防范措施。【结果】 图表数据学术不端行为主要分为图表数据伪造、剽窃和篡改三种类型。编辑可通过重视学术不端检测系统的结果分析、通过多种技术手段分析图片以及利用统计学方法检查表格数据来甄别图表数据学术不端行为。【结论】 期刊编辑部应加强以下措施来防范图表数据学术不端:重视学术诚信教育,在编辑加工环节制定详细的图片处理声明,要求作者提供原始数据,核查不同修改稿中的数据更改。此外,期刊编辑部还应建立完备的学术不端处理机制并积极推动同领域期刊共享诚信档案,共同推进和谐学术生态的建设。     

PHS perspectives on misconduct in science.

The Public Health Service (PHS) has undertaken a major effort to develop improved policies and procedures for dealing with misconduct in its research programs. Included in the definition of "misconduct" are the violation of Federal laws, regulations, or policies governing research or research training conducted, funded, or regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services; breaches of professional ethics that raise serious questions about an investigator''s or institution''s scientific or fiscal integrity; and serious failures to comply with other terms or conditions of an award. Recent incidents of falsification or misrepresentation of data and failure to comply with requirements for protection of human and animal subjects of research represent only a fraction of all research projects. However, they are troubling evidence that the traditional safeguards of science are not sufficient to prevent and detect willful wrongdoing. Research agencies, awardee institutions, and individual investigators have a collective responsibility to prevent misconduct in public research programs. The agencies and institutions, in turn, must deal promptly and equitably with allegations or evidence of misconduct. Individual research institutions and their professional organizations have developed policy statements affirming their responsibility for the integrity of the research enterprise and proposing specific procedures for dealing with incidents of misconduct. The National Institutes of Health currently serves as lead agency for a parallel PHS effort that includes a statement of general policies and principles, to be augmented by specific procedures for awarding agencies, regulatory agencies, and PHS intramural programs, as well as procedures for information sharing and joint investigations.     

Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility

BACKGROUND: Researchers everywhere are under increasing pressure to publish in high quality journals. The amount of space available in a journal such as Medical Education has not kept pace with the rise in submissions. Against a background of fierce competition, authors sometimes cut corners. This may lead to misconduct. AIMS: This paper aims to explore the most common types of publication misconduct seen in the Medical Education editorial office, and to consider the reasons for this and the implications for researchers in the field. DISCUSSION: This paper looks at the work of the Committee on Publication Ethics and describes the type of routine, low level misconduct which is increasingly reported by its member journals, including Medical Education. We offer a list of authors' responsibilities as a way of drawing attention to the wide range of individuals affected by author misconduct. The paper outlines 7 representative cases of actual or potential misconduct which have been dealt with in the Medical Education editorial office during the 18-month period to May 2004, putting them in context and using them to illustrate some of the ways in which apparently minor deviations from standard practice can have far reaching implications. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: This paper argues that misconduct affects a wider group than editors, although it is editors who are currently taking the lead in the promotion of standards. The authors suggest that responsibility for maintaining and improving standards in research publication should not be left to editors but should be seen as something in which all researchers have a stake. They support moves to make editors themselves more accountable to their readers and authors.     

'Sexy docs' and 'busty blondes': press coverage of professional misconduct cases brought before the General Medical Council

This paper presents an analysis of press coverage of the General Medical Council Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) during 1990 and 1991. All tabloid press coverage during this period was compared with PCC minutes to establish what kinds of cases were reported. The analysis reveals that the press gave undue attention to hearings involving sexual misconduct by General Practitioners and that the majority of patients reported as suffering from such misconduct were young women. The paper goes on to document the ideological assumptions underpinning this coverage and considers the consequences for the doctor-patient relationship.     

医学学术不端论文特征分析及防范对策——以国家卫生健康委员会通报的科研诚信案件为例

【目的】 分析国家卫生健康委员会(National Health Commission,NHC)通报的医学学术不端论文情况,探讨医学学术不端论文的有效防范对策。【方法】 以2021年6月3日至12月31日NHC通报的309篇医学学术不端论文为研究对象,对其作者特征(职称、科室、工作单位、署名作者数)、论文特征(发表与撤回时间、被引用情况)、学术不端行为及处理措施等进行统计学分析。【结果】 (1)309篇学术不端论文共有署名作者1378位,被通报作者数为1019位,共计被通报1168人次。除不知情作者(36位)外,有174位署名作者未被工作单位通报处罚。1019位被通报作者中,69.08%的作者工作单位在山东;81.24%的作者拥有中级或副高级职称;医师与护师分别占84.09%与11.49%;骨科领域作者最多(占7.85%)。(2)截至2022年1月31日,309篇学术不端论文的篇均被引频次为13.6次;有撤回声明并注明撤回日期的论文有201篇,撤回后其新增被引频次平均为3.9次/篇。仅30篇(14.93%)论文撤回后未再被引用。(3)论文涉及的学术不端行为主要包括数据造假(162篇,52.43%),第三方代写、代投或买卖论文(138篇,44.66%),编造研究过程(101篇,32.69%),不当署名(74篇,23.95%)与图片造假(31篇,10.32%)。【结论】 NHC通报的医学学术不端论文中,学术不端行为主要包括数据造假,第三方代写、代投或买卖论文,编造研究过程;部分作者存在多次学术不端行为。我国医学学术不端论文防范与医学科研诚信建设任重道远,国家层面、医学科研机构、国内医学期刊等需要携手共筑抵抗医学学术不端行为的围墙,维护学术道德、净化科研环境。     

Medical Research Misconduct Need Regulatory Reforms

The medical research misconduct has become a global problem. Except from countries like the USA, China, and Germany the exact figures of misconduct are not available. The research misconduct include fabricating the data, falsifying data, and plagiarism. The irresponsible research practices are publishing research data more than once, conflicts of interest is not declared, selective reporting of data and including an author who has not contributed at all and many more. About 2% of scientists have been found to admit the fabricating the data and 33% researchers were involved in irresponsible research practices. There is no formal regulatory programs available to monitor the research projects. Few developed countries like the USA, Germany, and China tried to develop programs which can monitor the medical research misconduct. There is a need to develop a regulatory system at national and institutional level to regulate the research activity to ensure that good ethical and scientific standards are practiced by medical researchers.     

医学论文写作时应注意的伦理道德问题

随着人类文明不断进步,社会和谐发展逐渐受到研究者的重视,医学作为直接面对人的科学比其他学科更强调人文主义.医学科研人员在进行科学研究时,所研究的项目不仅要具有科学性和创新性,而且更要注重伦理道德问题.国内外越来越多的生物医学期刊开始注重医学论文的伦理道德问题.本文结合国际期刊编辑委员会2010年发表的《向生物医学期刊投稿的统一要求》及出版物伦理委员会所关心的问题,结合医学论文写作中需要注意的伦理道德问题作一综述.     

Registration of clinical trials: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Altruistic motives and trust are central to scientific investigations involving people. These prompt volunteers to participate in clinical trials. However, publication bias and other causes of the failure to report trial results may lead to an overly positive view of medical interventions in the published evidence available. Registration of randomised controlled trials right from the start is therefore warranted. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has issued a statement to the effect that the 11 journals represented in the Committee will not consider publication of the results of trials that have not been registered in a publicly accessible register such as www.clinicaltrials.gov. Patients who voluntarily participate in clinical trials need to know that their contribution to better human healthcare is available for decision making in clinical practice.     

The registration of clinical trials has been extended to all patient-related intervention studies

Since 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has required the registration of clinical trials. Most other medical journals embrace this policy nowadays. To date, over 40,000 trials have been registered. From July 1 2008 all research studies that prospectively assign human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes will be subject to registration. From each registered trial, a short abstract of the results will be posted in the registry.     

Authorship: Can you Claim a Byline?

Decisions about bylines, although seemingly straightforward, can “breed ill-will,” “wreck friendships,” and “even damage careers” if decisions are not in accord with professional guidelines and common sense. Editors have attempted to promote responsible authorship by creating Uniform Requirements. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, each author must have made a substantial contribution to all 3 of the following conditions to qualify for authorship: conceiving and designing the work represented by the article or analyzing and interpreting data; drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and giving final approval of the version to be published. Despite these guidelines, bylines continue to include grafters and guests. Researchers believe guidelines for authorship are necessary but suggest the existing Uniform Requirements may be overly restrictive and easily misinterpreted. Editors will need to work with researchers to reach consensus on realistic and appropriate guidelines for authorship. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999;99:77-79.     

跨语种抄袭和代写代投类学术不端行为的甄别和防范

【目的】 分享科技期刊编辑发现和甄别隐性学术不端行为的实战经验,总结防范措施,为期刊编辑识别和防范学术不端行为提供借鉴。【方法】 针对编辑实务中遇到的隐性学术不端行为——跨语种抄袭、中介代写代投、利益输送型代写代投,梳理其典型案例的发现与甄别过程,总结编辑在隐性学术不端防治中发挥的作用。同时,总结学术不端稿件的投稿行为特征,并通过中国知网稿件追踪平台统计其一稿多投情况。【结果】 科技期刊编辑在防范隐性学术不端行为中发挥着独特的作用。根据学术不端稿件的投稿行为特征,针对性地制定初审学术不端检查流程,全方位运用学术不端检测系统、投审稿系统、稿件追踪等技术手段,同时增强编辑主体意识,提高警惕性,关注细节,可有效防范学术不端行为。【结论】 期刊编辑应在编辑实务中提高敏感度,从初审把关、善用工具、关注细节、加强宣传等方面入手,筑起学术不端防范堡垒,净化学术环境。     

Observations of ethical misconduct among industrial hygienists in England

Industrial hygienists are uniquely situated to help solve problems in the working environment, and failure to behave ethically might have serious and possibly fatal consequences. A survey was conducted to estimate the prevalence and nature of ethical misconduct within the UK occupational hygiene profession during the past 5 years. A postal questionnaire was sent to 50 professional industrial/occupational hygienists. Of the 43 respondents, 33 (77%) had witnessed activities of potential ethical misconduct in at least one of nine questionnaire categories. Additionally, greater than 20% of the hygienists had witnessed at least one incident of data fabrication, failure to share credit on work, failure to protect confidentiality, criticizing the integrity of another hygienist for one's own gain, and plagiarism. The investigation also asked hygienists for their opinions on the reasons for breaches as well as potential methods of improvement.     

Criminalization of scientific misconduct

This paper discusses the criminalization of scientific misconduct, as discussed and defended in the bioethics literature. In doing so it argues against the claim that fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) together identify the most serious forms of misconduct, which hence ought to be criminalized, whereas other forms of misconduct should not. Drawing the line strictly at FFP is problematic both in terms of what is included and what is excluded. It is also argued that the criminalization of scientific misconduct, despite its anticipated benefits, is at risk of giving the false impression that dubious practices falling outside the legal regulation “do not count”. Some doubts are also raised concerning whether criminalization of the most serious forms of misconduct will lower the burdens for universities or successfully increase research integrity. Rather, with or without criminalization, other measures must be taken and are probably more important in order to foster a more healthy research environment.

     

Excessive and disproportionate advertising in peer-reviewed journals

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has outlined ethical guidelines concerning the advertising practices of peer-reviewed journals that briefly discuss issues of excessive and disproportionate advertising. The authors evaluated these guidelines using quantitative data, assessing the types and frequencies of advertising in 2001 print issues of NEJM and JAMA, two principal members of ICMJE. Advertising ratios (ratio of advertisements to editorial content) were near unity in NEJM and 0.30 in JAMA, compared with reported ratios of 0.15 among low-circulation specialty science journals and 0.80 among high-circulation consumer magazines. In both journals, five corporations placed more than 50% of all display advertisements. The findings suggest a dissonance between the ethical guidelines and the de facto advertising practices of arguably the two most important member journals of the ICMJE. There is a need to define and apply standards for excessive and disproportionate advertising.     

La Oficina de Integridad Científica en España. Una tarea pendiente

In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct.     

Academic misconduct: results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys

Educators in health-related fields are particularly sensitive to academic misconduct because undergraduate students who falsify academic work in such fields can go on to endanger the health and well being of the very people they are meant to assist. This paper presents the results of a survey of 104 faculty and 314 undergraduate students regarding their experience with academic misconduct. Faculty and student definitions of misconduct are compared, the incidence of cheating within each category is reported, and the projected efficacy of methods for controlling misconduct are examined. Major findings include the following: faculty and students differed significantly in their definitions of 24 of the 36 described behaviors, 82% of the surveyed undergraduate students admitted to engaging in some form of academic misconduct during their college careers, few differences in cheating patterns were related to year in school (class) or gender, and faculty and students differed on the impact that changes in environment and procedure were expected to have on cheating.     

被撤销医学论文数据学术不端行为与防范对策研究

【目的】 分析被撤销医学论文中数据学术不端类型及其行为特征,提出相应建议,为识别和防范此类学术不端行为提供借鉴。【方法】 选择Retraction Watch数据库中1902篇被撤销医学论文作为数据源,分析论文被撤销的主要原因,总结医学论文数据学术不端的常见类型和行为特征,从作者、作者单位、期刊出版单位、制度建设等方面提出相应的防范措施。【结果】 2005年以后因数据问题被撤销的医学论文数量呈较快增长趋势,并在国家/地区分布上呈集中趋势(54.47%分布于美国、日本、中国);伪造数据、存疑数据、错误数据、不可靠数据、重复数据、剽窃数据等是被撤稿的主要原因,主要可归纳为数据伪造、数据剽窃、数据篡改3种类型,其呈现方式多样且行为特征各异,准确把握其基本特征,有助于科学辨识、防范数据学术不端行为。【结论】 作者主动把好“源头关”,自觉接受诚信监督;作者单位履行科研诚信建设主体责任;期刊出版单位提高数据存疑意识,强化数据和统计学审查,建立多技术协同防范机制;多部门主动构建失信联合惩戒机制,以有效遏制数据学术不端行为。