Search

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)--although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

BackgroundApproximately 90% of currently published clinical and public health research is in the form of observational studies. Having a detailed and registered study protocol prior to data collection is important in any empirical study. Without this, there is no reliable way to assess the occurrence of publication bias, outcome reporting bias, and other protocol deviations. However, there is currently no solid guidance available on the information that a protocol for an observational study should contain. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to formulate the Standardized Protocol Items Recommendations for Observational Studies (SPIROS) reporting guidelines, which focus on 3 main study designs of analytical epidemiology: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. MethodsA scoping review of published protocol papers of observational studies in epidemiology will identify candidate items for the SPIROS reporting guidelines. The list of items will be extended with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist items and recommendations from the SPIROS steering committee. This long list serves as the basis for a 2-round Delphi survey among experts to obtain consensus on which items to include. Each candidate item from the long list will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale to assess relevance for inclusion in the SPIROS reporting guidelines. Following the Delphi survey, an expert-driven consensus workshop will be convened to finalize the reporting guidelines. ResultsA scoping review of published observational study protocols has been completed, with 59 candidate items identified for inclusion into the Delphi survey, itself launched in early 2020. ConclusionsThis project aims to improve the timeliness, completeness, and clarity of study protocols of observational studies in analytical epidemiology by producing expert-based recommendations of items to be addressed. These reporting guidelines will facilitate and encourage researchers to prepare and register study protocols of sufficient quality prior to data collection in order to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and quality of observational studies. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/17864

Open Peer Review is gaining prominence in attention and use, but to responsibly open up peer review, there is an urgent need for additional evidence. Here, we propose a preliminary research agenda and issue a call to action. Open Peer Review is gaining prominence in attention and use, but to responsibly open up peer review there is an urgent need for additional evidence. This Perspective proposes a preliminary research agenda and issues a call-to-action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universities are, to a large extent, publicly funded. It is reasonable to expect that society should benefit as a result. This means that scientific research should at least have a potential societal impact. Universities and individual researchers should therefore give serious thought to the societal relevance of their research activities and report on them widely. Core questions they should be asking are: "Do we do the right things?" and "Do we do them right?". This implies that as well as indicators of scientific quality, attention should be given to indicators of societal relevance. These two considerations are examined in the context of current evaluation practices of academic research. Twelve indicators of societal relevance are proposed, focusing on both their socio-cultural and economic value. The examples given mainly concern the health and life sciences. This paper concludes with a discussion of the key challenges in evaluating the societal relevance of scientific research.

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund. Research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that researchers make an explicit commitment to research integrity. This Consensus View suggests 6 core topics that funders should cover in a research integrity promotion plan and provides practical recommendations for how to implement one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]