A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases

Abstract

Background The areas of Research Ethics (RE) and Research Integrity (RI) are rapidly evolving. Cases of research misconduct, other transgressions related to RE and RI, and forms of ethically questionable behaviors have been frequently published. The objective of this scoping review was to collect RE and RI cases, analyze their main characteristics, and discuss how these cases are represented in the scientific literature. Methods The search included cases involving a violation of, or misbehavior, poor judgment, or detrimental research practice in relation to a normative framework. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Ovid, and Science Direct in March 2018, without language or date restriction. Data relating to the articles and the cases were extracted from case descriptions. Results A total of 14,719 records were identified, and 388 items were included in the qualitative synthesis. The papers contained 500 case descriptions. After applying the eligibility criteria, 238 cases were included in the analysis. In the case analysis, fabrication and falsification were the most frequently tagged violations (44.9%). The non-adherence to pertinent laws and regulations, such as lack of informed consent and REC approval, was the second most frequently tagged violation (15.7%), followed by patient safety issues (11.1%) and plagiarism (6.9%). 80.8% of cases were from the Medical and Health Sciences, 11.5% from the Natural Sciences, 4.3% from Social Sciences, 2.1% from Engineering and Technology, and 1.3% from Humanities. Paper retraction was the most prevalent sanction (45.4%), followed by exclusion from funding applications (35.5%). Conclusions Case descriptions found in academic journals are dominated by discussions regarding prominent cases and are mainly published in the news section of journals. Our results show that there is an overrepresentation of biomedical research cases over other scientific fields compared to its proportion in scientific publications. The cases mostly involve fabrication, falsification, and patient safety issues. This finding could have a significant impact on the academic representation of misbehaviors. The predominance of fabrication and falsification cases might diverge the attention of the academic community from relevant but less visible violations, and from recently emerging forms of misbehaviors.

Hotspots of academic misconduct and misrepresentations among academics in the Republic of Poland, a European Union member state

“…Previous research projects on MMG worldwide have proved that medical and health sciences have been the most affected by poor academic integrity (Armond et al, 2021). Herein, it has been shown that social sciences have been the most prone to the various forms of MMG in Poland.…”

“…Other forms of MMG in Poland include data fabrication and providing fake peer review revisions, to mention only a few examples. Nonetheless, in the international context, the most common forms of MMG observed by the EnTIRE consortium (https://embassy.science/wiki/Main_Page) were falsification and fabrication of research data (Armond et al, 2021).…”

Nursing, the wilderness of mirrors and the struggle for health information of high quality

“…It is, however, attractive for doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals to think that academic medicine and healthcare are founded purely on objective scientific facts. Moreover, the traditional dichotomy between trusted academic knowledge and degraded knowledge circulating on social media is challenged by the growing number of publications showing academic misconduct, misrepresentation, and gaming observed in academia (13,14). Thus, members of the academic community may also contribute to the spreading of false information.…”

A scoping review of the research integrity architecture and how it is addressed in legal frameworks, institutional policies, and the scholarly literature: Research protocol

“…Recently, the topic has been increasingly under the spotlight because of the necessity of creating appropriate scientific governance and other efforts to formalize and institutionalize good science 3 . According to Armond et al, academic interest in research integrity surged in the last decade for reasons such as the evolving nature of research environments due to the introduction of new technologies, the pressure to publish, competition for funding, diversification in collaboration, and the rise in publicized cases of misconduct 4 .…”