Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D. Pengarang

1. Scientific authorship, pluralism, and practice Barton Moffatt, Ph.D. Department of Philosophy and Religion, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA ABSTRACT In this article, I argue that understanding authorship requires that we grapple with the plurality of distinct accounts of scientific authorship. As a result, we should be careful in how we identify and quantify unethical practices such as ghostwriting. Judgements about who should be able to decide who is an author raise interesting questions about the autonomy of scientific practices. KEYWORDS Authorship; research ethics; scientific pluralism 2. Repeating probability of authors with retracted scientific publications Toshio Kuroki, M.D.a and Akira Ukawa, Ph.D.b aResearch Center for Science Systems, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Kojimachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan; bRIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science, Kobe, Japan ABSTRACT Both the scientific community and the general public have expressed concern over scientific misconduct. The number of retracted articles has increased dramatically over the past 20 years and now comprises about .02% of the 2 million articles published each year. Retraction of publications available in large public databases can be analyzed as an objective measure for scientific misconduct and errors. In this project, we analyzed retractions of scientific publications using the Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases. We found that a power law is applicable to distributions of retracting authors and retracted publications with exponents of about −.6 and −3.0, respectively. Application of a power-law model for retracted publications implies that retraction is not a random event. Analysis of the retraction distributions suggests that a small fraction (1 –2%) of retracting authors with ≧5 retractions are responsible for around 10% of retraction. The probabilities for their repeating retraction are calculated using a statistical model: 3–5% likelihood of repeat retraction for authors with a single retraction at five years after the latest retraction and 26–37% for authors with five retractions at five years after the latest retraction. By focusing on those with repeated retractions, this analysis could contribute to identification of measures to reduce such repetition of retractions. KEYWORDS Power law; repeating probability; research misconduct; retraction of publications 3. How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community Ivan Buljan, M.Psy. a, Lana Barać, Ph.D. a,b, and Ana Marušić, M.D., Ph.D. a aDepartment of Research in Biomedicine in Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; bResearch Office, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia ABSTRACT The aim of our study has been to use a qualitative approach to explore the potential motivations and drivers for unethical behaviors in biomedicine and determine the role of institutions regarding those issues in a small scientific community setting. Three focus groups were held—two with doctoral students and one with active senior researchers. Purposive sampling was used to reach participants at different stages of their scientific careers. Participants in all three focus groups were asked the same questions regarding the characteristics and behaviors of ethical/unethical scientists, ethical climate, role, and responsibility of institutions; they were also asked to suggest ways to improve research integrity. The data analysis included coding of the transcripts, categorization of the initial codes, and identification of themes and patterns. Three main topics were derived from the focus groups discussions. The first included different forms of unethical behaviors including increasing research “waste,” non-publication of negative results, authorship manipulation, data manipulation, and repression of collaborators. The second addressed the factors influencing unethical behavior, both external and internal, to the researchers. Two different definitions of ethics in science emerged; one from the categorical perspective and the other from the dimensional perspective. The third topic involved possible routes for improvement, one from within the institution through the research integrity education, research integrity bodies, and quality control, and the other from outside the institution through external supervision of institutions. Based on the results of our study, research misconduct in a small scientific community is perceived to be the consequence of the interaction of several social and psychological factors, both general and specific, for small research communities. Possible improvements should be systematic, aiming both for improvements in work environment and personal awareness in research ethics, and the implementation of those changes should be institutional responsibility. KEYWORDS Academic institutions; ethics; qualitative research; research integrity; research misconduct 4. Inaction over retractions of identified fraudulent publications: ongoing weakness in the system of scientific self-correction Christian J. Wiedermann, M.D., F.A.C.P. Rektorat, UMIT – Private Universität für Medizinische Informatik und Technik, Hall in Tirol, Austria ABSTRACT Published articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered reliable due to honest error, publication misconduct, or research misconduct. This article focuses on the case of a single serial violator of research and publication ethics in anesthesiology and critical care, which is widely publicized. A chain of events led to detection of misconduct that had substantial impact on the evidence base for the safety of hydroxyethyl starch, an intravenous artificial colloid solution, which is reflected in current guidelines on fluid management and volume resuscitation. As citations to retracted works continue to be a cause for concern, this article reviews the retraction status of this author’ s published articles to determine whether sufficient action has been taken to retract his body of work. Results show that retraction practices are not uniform and that guidelines for retraction are still not being fully implemented, resulting in retractions of insufficient quantity and quality. As retractions continue to emerge for the author’ s publications, with ten more since 2011, and as they are generally increasing, these data on retractions not only provide findings of misconduct, but also allow us to make inferences about ongoing weaknesses in the system of scientific literature. KEYWORDS Authorship; misconduct in research; publication ethics; research ethics; retraction notice; science communication