scientific fraud: an editor-in-chief’s perspective...scientific fraud: an editor-in-chief’s...

Radiation Research Society

Scientific Fraud: An Editor-in-Chief’s Perspective

Marc S. Mendonca, Ph.D.Editor-in-Chief

Radiation Research


374 new manuscripts were received from 45 countries: 126 papers (29%) from North America

66 papers (18%) from greater EU + Eastern Europe Russia + Ukraine

138 papers (37%) from Asia & Australia(China, Japan, South Korea)

69 papers (18%) from Middle East & India

337 revised and 60 re-revised manuscripts were also received 771 total manuscripts were received and reviewed !


143 Manuscripts and 1,331 Pages published


Senior Editors, Associate Editors, Statistical

Consultant and 414 different reviewers who

performed 732 reviews from September 2015 to

September 2016!

All of the above managed by Judy Fye our

Managing Editor and Debra Nolan our Graphics

Editor


Plagiarism, authorship disputes and research fraud are just a few of the

forms of misconduct young researchers encounter, often without the skills

and guidance to deal with them. Some researchers unknowingly cross

ethical boundaries themselves because they don't know what the

boundaries are. Students and young researchers may not be aware of what

constitutes a breach and how just one violation — even through lack of

knowledge — can affect their career and society at large. Scientific

research is used to make decisions about everything from medical

treatment to government spending on infrastructure and the environment.

Despite growing awareness and focus on the issue of ethical misconduct in

research and publishing, more and more cases are being detected.

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-to-avoid-misconduct-in-research-and-publishing

https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/63/ethics/Publishing-ethics.html


http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3643#313


http://cseditors.wpengine.com/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-

paper-on-publication-ethics/2-4-sponsor-roles-and-responsibilities/#241




Ghost Authorship


Editorial Misconduct

The explosion of predatory “open access” journals who follow the author

“pay to play” mentality has hurt academic publishing because many do not

perform any serious “peer review”.

J. Bohannon, Who is afraid of Peer Review? Science 342:60-65 (2013)

Suppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct


1) Is research misconduct black and white?

2) Is there a distinct line between ethical and non ethical

behavior?

Three myths about scientific misconduct:


1) Only bad apples get into trouble



2) Scientific skills are enough to do good science



2) Scientific skills are enough to do good science

3) The more publications and grants the better


Why do people do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct


How big a problem is Scientific Misconduct?



If you do a PubMed search on Scientific Misconduct,

how many citation hits will you get?



If you do a PubMed search on Scientific Misconduct,

how many citation hits will you get?

~5,000!


Fanelli, D, PLOS One 4:e5738 (2015)


How many papers have been retracted?


How many papers have been retracted?

S.L. George and M. Buyse, Clin. Invest. (London) 5: 161-173 (2015)


Is scientific misconduct or the lack of reproducibly

something new?



something new?

Robert Boyle 350 years ago reported:

D.S. Kornfeld and S.L. Titus , Nature 537: 29-30 (2016)



something new?

D.S. Kornfeld and S.L. Titus , Nature 537: 29-30 (2016)


Are men more likely than women to commit

scientific fraud?


Are men more likely than women to commit

scientific fraud?

A. Kaatz, P.N. Vogelman, M. Carnes, mBio 4: e00156-13


What to do?


Questions?

scientific fraud: an editor-in-chief’s perspective...scientific fraud: an editor-in-chief’s...

Documents