The increase in scientific misconduct in health research: impression or reality?

Authors

  • Diego Ribeiro Rabelo
  • Gustavo Ferreira Lopes Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública
  • Henrique Santana Cumming

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.2021.e3389

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D. The dishonesty of honest people. J Mark Res. 2008;45(6):633–44. https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjmkr.45.6.633

Vlaar PWL, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships: Toward an integrative framework. SAGE Open. 2007;32(4):407–28. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1059601106294215

Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(4):249–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923

Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401143

Rode SM, Rios R, Oliveira F, Paranhos LR. Má conduta em publicações científicas. 2018;23(3):7–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.3.007-008.edt

Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028–33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

Almeida RMVR, Rocha KA, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SMR. Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(5):1447–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9714-5

Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047

Yawar A. For the love of Piltdown Man. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(7):586. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(16)30309-x

Cyranoski D. Woo Suk Hwang convicted, but not of fraud. Nature. 2009;461(7268):1181. https://doi.org/10.1038/4611181a

Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: A historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/4611181a

Mazar N, Ariely D. Dishonesty in scientific research. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(11):3993–6. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci84722

David PA, Spence MJ. Towards Institutional Infrastructures for e-Science: The Scope of the Challenge. SSRN Electron J. 2011;(2):1–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1325240

Targino MG, Garcia JCR, Silva KLN. Information science reviewers versus the open peer review. Rev Interam Bibliotecol. 2019;43(1):e5. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rib.v43n1ei3

Murphy SP, Bulman C, Shariati B, Hausmann L. Submitting a manuscript for peer review-integrity, integrity, integrity. J Neurochem. 2014;128(3):341–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.12644

Bauchner H, Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, Thornton J. Scientific misconduct and medical journals. JAMA. 2018;320(19):1985–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14350

Brainard J, Jia Y. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’ [Internet]. Science Mag; 2018 [citado em 2021 Mar 5]. Disponível em: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049

Mesquita CT. Integrity in Scientific Research. Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2017;2(1):1–2. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5935/2359-4802.20170026

ICMJE [Internet]. International committee of medical journal editors; 2020 [citado em 2020 Out 26]. Disponível em: http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/

Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE history timeline [Internet]. COPE; 2020 [citado em 2020 Nov 26]. Disponível em: https://publicationethics.org/about/history

Flaquer GN, Gomes MP, Silveira L, Michels PE, Vidal I. Declaração de São Francisco sobre Avaliação da Pesquisa [Internet]. DORA; 2012. Disponível em: https://sfdora.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/DORA_Brazilian-Portuguese.pdf

Fang FC, Casadevall A. Reforming science: Structural reforms. Infect Immun. 2012;80(3):897–901. https://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2FIAI.06184-11

Casadevall A, Fang FC. Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infect Immun. 2012;80(3):891–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.06183-11

Palla IA, Singson M, Thiyagarajan S. A comparative analysis of retracted papers in Health Sciences from China and India. Account Res. 2020;27(7):401-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1754804

Rivera H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34(2):e6. https://dx.doi.org/10.3346%2Fjkms.2019.34.e6

Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, Rijcke S, Rafols I. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015;520(7548):429-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Benedictus R, Miedema F, Ferguson MWJ. Fewer numbers, better science. Nature. 2016;538(7626):453–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/538453a

Goldacre B, Drysdale H, Powell-Smith A, Dale A, Milosevic I, Slade E, et al. The compare Trials Project [Internet]. Oxford: Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2016. Disponível em: www.compare-trials.org

The People’s Trial [Internet]. NUI Galway, Irlanda: Health Research Board; 2019 [citado em 2020 Out 26]. Disponível em: https://thepeoplestrial.ie/about-us/

Iniciativa Brasileira de Reprodutibilidade [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis / Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro / Instituto Serrapilheira. 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from: https://www.reprodutibilidade.bio.br/

Neves K, Carneiro CFD, Wasilewska-Sampaio AP, Abreu M, Valério-Gomes B, Tan PB, et al. Two years into the brazilian reproducibility initiative: Reflections on conducting a large-scale replication of brazilian biomedical science. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2020;115(9):e200328. https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760200328

Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

Twa MD. Scientific Integrity and the Reproducibility Crisis. Optom Vis Sci. 2019;96(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0000000000001339

Long TC, Errami M, George AC, Sun Z, Garner HR. Scientific intergrity: Responding to possible plagiarism. Science. 2009;323(5919):1293–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167408

Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68397. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0068397

Published

2022-01-06

How to Cite

Rabelo, D. R., Lopes, G. F., & Cumming, H. S. (2022). The increase in scientific misconduct in health research: impression or reality?. Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 3, e3389. https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.2021.e3389

Issue

Section

Concept Articles