| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Research Integrity and Scientific MisconductUniversity of Birmingham, UK, a.j.smith{at}bham.ac.uk
Key Words: integrity • ethics • misconduct We have seen several high-profile cases of scientific misconduct in the media recently, including Hwang Woo-Suk, the stem cell researcher, and Jon Sudbø, the oral cancer researcher. A survey of over 3000 early and mid-career NIH-funded scientists in the US reported that approximately one-third indicated some act of scientific misbehavior (Martinson et al., 2005). On a global basis, the number of such misdemeanors may be even greater. Although the number of cases of gross scientific misconduct may be few, it is tempting to conclude that more limited falsification and fraud may be of greater prevalence. This is clearly a matter of significant concern, both for the scientific community and for the general population, who fund research through their taxes and charitable donations. It should go without saying that the highest standards of research integrity are a tacit assumption when research is reported. Are we now seeing a greater prevalence of scientific misconduct, or are we simply getting better at detecting it? The answer to this question is unclear, but many researchers would concede that we are now working in a more competitive environment. Competition may derive from research grant funding, tenure/employment/promotion of faculty, institutional and national research assessments, and league tables of universities, to name but a few of the environmental factors, and generally, we are seeing greater pressure for accountability and transparency within research, as in other walks of life. Whether increasing competition is the main driver for misconduct is unclear, but nevertheless there is need for greater attention to research integrity. Most institutions have policies and guidelines for research integrity and misconduct, but I wonder how many of us have read these? The fact that some countries have set up organizations to regulate research integrity perhaps reflects the level of concern about this issue. Our own regulatory controls—through IRB and ethical review committee approvals, national legislation, and peer review at the research publication stage—are clearly insufficient to prevent some researchers contemplating misconduct. Scientific journals now ask authors to make several declarations at submission about the integrity of their research, but nevertheless concerns remain. Many journals will have experienced plagiarism at some stage, and this highlights the differing attitudes to such misconduct (Brumfiel, 2007; Yilmaz 2007). Collaborations with other researchers require a level of trust on both sides, and we should remember that when collaborative research is published, responsibility lies with all of the authors to ensure that the research has been conducted with the highest standards of integrity, and that all authors have had access to the primary data. Dual publication of data is also unacceptable, unless the previously published work is fully acknowledged, and similar caveats hold for the re-analysis of previously reported data. Attempts to detect plagiarism and other misconduct through the use of software programs to compare with various data sources have shown variable success. However, it must be questioned whether such approaches are the best solution. Robust peer review by those with considerable expertise and knowledge of a field of research remains one of our most effective means of assessing research for publication. This requires that reviewers have specific expertise and knowledge of the literature in the area of research that they are reviewing, and thus, there may only be a limited number of reviewers who truly have sufficient expertise to referee a particular manuscript robustly. If we are to maintain high standards in the conduct and dissemination of research, it is important that researchers receive adequate training in research integrity. Traditionally, we have often relied on osmosis of attitudes and standards from mentors and supervisors, which is perhaps not very effective. It is important that we now adopt a more robust approach to providing formal programs of training in research integrity for our young researchers and graduate students. Even some more experienced researchers may benefit from such formal training. Some institutions have already developed effective and valuable training in research integrity, and sharing their experiences with others, particularly in countries with developing research bases, would have considerable benefits. Training in research integrity should be embedded within all research training programs and given a profile similar to that of other aspects of training. "Prevention is better than cure" and the future credibility of research in the public’s eyes demand that we ensure that research is conducted to the highest standards of integrity. REFERENCES
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 3,
197 (2008)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
