Research Misconduct |
|||
|
mountain exists somewhere , but all a reviewer can do is tell whether the tree looks like a tree , or the mountain looks like a mountain .
“ With peer-review , you are reviewing a summary , or a rendering , or what researchers say they did ,” Dr . Resnik said . “ They could have made it up .”
“ Blood is one of the most authoritative scientific journals in the biomedical field , and , for us , it is absolutely essential to publish what is right ,” explained Blood Editor-in-Chief Bob Löwenberg , MD , PhD . As a peer-reviewed journal , though , “ all we can do is look at the data and ask , ‘ Are they consistent ?’ These things are difficult to find when reviewers and editors receive a manuscript .” For more about how Blood prevents and handles scientific misconduct , see SIDEBAR 3 .
Some editors argue that punishing individual scientists is outside of a journal ’ s jurisdiction . In a recent case of a retracted manuscript published in Nature Plants , Chief Editor Chris Surridge , PhD , defended the peer-reviewed journal ’ s role : “ Decisions about publication of research
SIDEBAR 3
How Blood Handles Misconduct
While most research is conducted and reported responsibly , Dr . Löwenberg said , mistakes and misconduct can take place . He outlined how Blood responds to cases of FFP and unintentional errors in the research it publishes :
• Prevention : When authors submit a manuscript , they sign a statement claiming full responsibility for the content , and that the research has been conducted correctly . Before any paper is published , it is reviewed through a software program to check for plagiarism and Blood editorial staff check images for signs of manipulation . The same process is undertaken for submissions to Blood Advances .
• Responding to allegations : If there is a signal of scientific misconduct – from the software and staff review , the authors , or a whistleblower – we take it seriously . Because we do not have access to the raw data or the laboratory books , our first step is going back to the author with our questions . If their responses aren ’ t satisfactory , we will bring our concerns to the authors ’ home institution , which will conduct its own investigation . We also have a staff member on Blood - a specialist in scientific integrity - who helps us determine whether the errors were the result of intentional misconduct , and then provides advice regarding appropriate actions based on current best practices in scientific publishing .
• Penalties for scientific misconduct : If an institutional investigation finds that scientific misconduct has occurred , the institution typically contacts us to recommend a retraction . We will issue a retraction with an explanatory statement . If the errors are determined to be unintentional and do not invalidate the conclusions of the paper , or if the authors have contacted us about relatively minor errors they identified in their own research , we will issue a correction .
|
are made on the basis of the research submitted and the peer reviews of that research . … It is not our role to investigate scientific misconduct or determine appropriate sanctions . … Our role is to ensure that the studies that are submitted to us and which are ultimately published are as accurate and reliable as possible irrespective of who the authors are .” 14
Regarding the same case , Committee on Publication Ethics ( COPE ) secretary and interim treasurer Charon Pierson , PhD , noted that COPE does not support the practice of temporarily banning authors guilty of misconduct . “ I would say that the only responsibility of the journal is to scrutinize manuscripts ,” she said . “ To deal with the scientists themselves – that ’ s the realm of the institutions , the laboratories , the funding agencies , the governments , all of those pieces of the puzzle .” 14
Dr . Byrne agreed , but added that one of the inherent problems with identifying misconduct is that if someone is knowingly doing something wrong , that person is going to cover his or her tracks . “ True misconduct , such as data falsification or manipulation , can be hard to detect because it is hidden ,” she said . “ It ’ s often easier for peer reviewers to find honest mistakes .”
Stopping Misconduct
If journals cannot be expected to carry the burden of identifying and investigating all cases of possible research misconduct , who should be responsible for it ?
The interviewed experts all agreed : Everyone involved .
“ Scientists can say it ’ s the journals ’ fault and journals can say it ’ s the institutions ’ fault , and institutions can say it ’ s the NIH ’ s fault … let ’ s stop blaming and just say that everyone is responsible ,” Dr . Oransky asserted .
And , if everyone is part of the problem , then everyone must be part of the solution .
To aid in deterring or identifying misconduct , Dr . Byrne advised that researchers ’ employers should practice good supervision of their staff and stay vigilant for signs of possible misconduct . Red flags might include employees working outside of normal working hours , scientists coming and going a lot , or working only on weekends , she said .
“ Good , strong supervision , open lines of communication , and insistence on reviewing primary data are all important parts of ensuring research integrity ,” Dr . Byrne added .
Dr . Resnik emphasized the importance of strong mentoring programs . “ Mentoring is a very important part of education and training . Mentors can promote good science and model good behaviors .” He also called for the scientific community to provide adequate
|
protection for whistleblowers . If people want to report misconduct , they must be protected from possible retaliation .
Rehabbing Research
The potential for people to “ come back ” from allegations of misconduct or retractions of scientific papers depends on the severity of the case .
“ I imagine that there are a lot of cases of misconduct that don ’ t even make it out of the institution or are handled under the table ,” Dr . Resnik surmised . “ If it is caught early and someone is sanctioned internally , maybe that person can go on to have a good career .”
Allegations of misconduct can be career-killers , too , because they often lead to termination and sanctions . In a 2014 analysis of the financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct , authors looked at 291 articles retracted ( mostly for falsification or fabrication ) over 20 years . 15 These retracted papers accounted for about $ 58 million in direct funding from the NIH – or less than 1 percent of the NIH budget during the same 20-year period – and each article accounted for an average of just under $ 400,000 in direct costs . After investigators had their papers retracted , their median numbers of annual publications dropped from 2.9 to 0.25 , representing a 91.8-percent decrease in publication output .
Three researchers who were charged with misconduct by the ORI ( and hence barred from receiving federal funds for a period of 3 to 5 years ) detailed the longterm effects of these charges – particularly in the digital age , in The Scientist . 16 Any time the ORI formally rules on misconduct , the information is published on the internet , so , even if a person ’ s debarment from federal funding was lifted more than a decade ago , the description of the ORI ’ s case and the penalty the investigator received will show up in an internet search . The investigators claimed that the penalties have cast decades-long shadows over their careers and funding prospects .
However , tools exist for researchers who have committed misconduct and want to find a path toward redemption .
The ORI launched its RePAIR ( Restoring Professionalism and Integrity in Research ) program to provide “ intensive professional development education for investigators who have engaged in wrongdoing or unprofessional behavior , including persistent non-compliance .” 17 Participants in this program will attend several days of intense intervention at a neutral site , followed by lengthy period of monitoring back at their home institution . The premise of RePAIR is that these interventions will “ rebuild [ investigators ’] ethical views ” and turn them back into responsible citizens of the research community .
|
Washington University in St . Louis houses the NIH-funded Restoring Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program , which offers “ personalized assessments , a group workshop , and post-workshop coaching calls to help researchers operate professionally in today ’ s complex environments .” Among potential candidates for the program are those who “ have been investigated for noncompliance or misconduct [ who ] wish to move forward constructively .” 18
On the whole though , just like many cases of misconduct , whether or not a researcher should be accepted back into the research community is often not a straightforward issue .
“ One lesson we should all learn is that better education and training on good scientific practices is needed ,” Dr . Resnik said . “ We don ’ t want anyone to commit misconduct because of ignorance .” — By Leah Lawrence ●
REFERENCES
1 . Wakefield AJ , Murch SH , Anthony A , et al . RETRACTED : Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia , non-specific colitis , and pervasive developmental disorder in children . Lancet . 1998 ; 351:637-41 .
2 . NHS Choices . Ruling on doctor in MMR scare . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from https :// www . nhs . uk / news / medical-practice / rulingon-doctor-in-mmr-scare /.
3 . The Office of Research Integrity . Definition of research misconduct . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from https :// ori . hhs . gov / definition-misconduct .
4 . Chabner BA . Self-plagiarism . Oncologist . 2011 ; 16:1347-8 .
5 . Retraction of Rini BI . VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma . Oncologist . 2011 ; 16:1481 .
6 . Retraction of Dressman HK , Berchuck A , Chan G , et al . An integrated genomic-based approach to individualized treatment of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer . J Clin Oncol . 2012 ; 30:678 .
7 . Fanelli D . How many scientists fabricate and falsify research ? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data . PLoS One . 2009 ; 4 : e5738 .
8 . Schroter S , Godlee F , Wager E , Green M . BMJ ’ s research misconduct survey . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from https :// blogs . bmj . com / bmj / files / 2012 / 01 / BMJ-research-misconduct-surveyfor-posting-on-bmj . com _. pdf .
9 . Steneck NH . Assessing the integrity of publicly funded research : a background report for the November 2000 ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from https :// ori . hhs . gov / sites / default / files / assessing _ int _ res . pdf .
10 . The New York Times Magazine . An unwelcome discovery . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from https :// www . nytimes . com / 2006 / 10 / 22 / magazine / 22sciencefraud . html .
11 . Jin GZ , Jones B , Lu SF , Uzzi B . The reverse Matthew effect : catastrophe and consequence in scientific teams . NBER Working Paper No . 19489 . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from http :// www . nber . org / papers / w19489 .
12 . Elsevier . At Harvard , developing software to spot misused images in science . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from https :// www . elsevier . com / connect / at-harvard-developing-software-to-spotmisused-images-in-science .
13 . Bik EM , Casadevall A , Fang FC . The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications . mBio . 2016 ; 7 : e00809-16 .
14 . The Scientist . How journals treat papers from researchers who committed misconduct . Accessed May 23 , 2018 , from https :// www . the-scientist . com / news-analysis / how-journals-treatpapers-from-researchers-who-committed-misconduct-31053 .
15 . Stern AM , Casadevall A , Steen RG , Fang FC . Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications . eLife . 2014 ; 3 : e02956 .
16 . The Scientist . Life after fraud . Accessed May 22 , 2018 , from https :// www . the-scientist . com / uncategorized / life-afterfraud-44032 .
17 . The Office of Research Integrity . RePAIR program provides solution to redeem researchers . Accessed May 23 , 2018 , from https :// ori . hhs . gov / blog / repair-program-provides-solutionredeem-researchers .
18 . P . I . Program . Helping researchers become more effective professionals . Accessed May 23 , 2018 , from http :// integrityprogram . org /.
|