Cycles of invisibility: The limits of transparency in dealing with scientific misconduct

Abstract

Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highly visible, while investigation and decision-making procedures remain mostly invisible. This corresponds to high levels of acceptance of sanctions in the scientific community, but a low acceptance of the respective authorities. Such a punitiveness in turn exacerbates confidentiality concerns, so that authorities become even more secretive. We argue that punitiveness towards scientific misconduct is driven by such a cycle of invisibility.

What to communicate in retraction notices?

“…9). However, a wide range of information covered in neither the COPE recommendation nor the Retraction Watch proposal has been identified in retraction notices (Hesselmann & Reinhart, 2021; Lin & Chen, 2022; Xu & Hu, 2021, 2022a). Additionally, some scholars (e.g., Andersen & Wray, 2021; Dougherty, 2018) call for disclosing other information in retraction notices.…”

“…Retraction notices are widely criticized for uninformativeness and opacity (Grey et al, 2022; Hesselmann & Reinhart, 2021; Teixeira da Silva & Vuong, 2021; Vuong, 2020). To highlight this issue, Retraction Watch has a category of ‘unhelpful retraction notices’, which are ‘vague, misleading, and even information‐free’ (Oransky, 2015, para.…”

“…To provide practical implications for producing informative retraction notices and increasing transparency about the retraction handling process, we propose a retraction notice content inventory, as presented in Table 1. The development of the inventory drew on de jure and de facto contents of retraction notices from various data sources (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, n.d.; Andersen & Wray, 2021; Committee on Publication Ethics Council, 2019; Dougherty, 2018; European Association of Science Editors, 2022; Grey et al, 2022; Hesselmann & Reinhart, 2021; Lin & Chen, 2022; Oransky, 2015; Teixeira da Silva & Vuong, 2021; Xu & Hu, 2021, 2022a). The inventory consists of 25 information entries, which are categorized into five sections by information source.…”

Fostering a research integrity culture: Actionable advice for institutions

“…Alternatively, that responsibility can be transferred to an overarching -for example, national, or federal -committee (ALLEA 2017; Forsberg et al 2018;Mejlgaard et al 2020). Every step in the procedure should be explicitly described, from the possibility to informally consult a research integrity confidant (strictly confidential but clearly separated from a formal investigation and preferably at the level of the faculty; Forsberg et al 2018;Hesselmann and Reinhart 2021;Lerouge and Hol 2020;Mejlgaard et al 2020), to the procedure to file a formal complaint, to how the investigation will be conducted and when and how all those involved will receive updates or be notified of the final outcome. Similarly, the rights and responsibilities ofand measures to protect -both the 'whistle-blower' and the 'accused' should be spelled out (protection can be restricted to good-faith whistle-blowers to protect researchers against unfounded accusations; ALLEA 2017; L. M. Bouter and Hendrix 2017;Forsberg et al 2018) 4 .…”

“…Finally, to move beyond the current case-by-case approach and increase congruence in sanctions Hesselmann and Reinhart 2021), institutions should publicly publish anonymized reports about the results of research integrity investigations, including sanctions and measures against whistle-blower retaliation (Forsberg et al 2018;Gunsalus 2019;Gunsalus et al 2018;Lerouge and Hol 2020). This increases potential whistle-blowers' confidence in their institutions' ability to safely, promptly, professionally and satisfyingly investigate suspected breaches of integrity (Hesselmann and Reinhart 2021;Vie 2020). Gunsalus and colleagues (2018) proposed a checklist for research integrity investigations, which also covers the appropriateness and completeness of post-hoc reporting.…”