Integridad y conductas inapropiadas en investigación biomédica / Integrity and misconduct in biomedical research

Resumen: Los Comités Editoriales de revistas de corriente principal se ven enfrentados ocasionalmente a con ductas éticas inapropiadas en los manuscritos recibidos. El Comité de Ética en las publicaciones (COPE) ofrece recomendaciones para los editores respecto a cómo actuar frente a la sospecha de falta de ética en los manuscritos, ya sea recibidos o publicados. Cuando se pesquisa una mala práctica durante el proceso de revisión por pares, el manuscrito es rechazado, no obstante, si la conducta ina propiada es detectada después de la publicación de manuscrito, se procede a retractar la publicación. Revista Chilena de Pediatría no ha sido exenta a este tipo de conflictos. En este artículo analizamos los distintos aspectos relacionados con la falta de integridad de las publicaciones, como son las autorías, el plagio y el conflicto de intereses. Podemos concluir que las malas prácticas ocurren principalmente por desconocimiento de los autores, más que por intención de fraude. Se espera que el presente ma nuscrito logre instruir y sensibilizar a nuestros investigadores, respecto a las buenas prácticas en la investigación y publicación, y, contribuir, en lo posible, a prevenir que estas acciones ocurran en los manuscritos enviados a nuestra Revista.

Abstract: Editorial Boards of mainstream journals occasionally face ethical misconducts in received manus cripts. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides recommendations for editors on how to deal with suspected ethical misconduct in either received or published manuscripts. The manus cript is rejected when malpractice is observed during the peer review process, however, if the mis conduct is detected after the publication, the publication will be retracted. The Revista Chilena de Pediatría (Chilean Journal of Pediatrics) has not been exempt from these type of conflicts. In this article, we analyze different aspects regarding the lack of integrity in publications, such as authorship, plagiarism, and conflict of interest. We can conclude that malpractices take place mainly due to the lack of knowledge of the authors rather than intent to defraud. It is expected that this article will suc ceed in instructing and sensitizing our researchers on good practices in research and publication, and contribute, as far as possible, to prevent this actions in the manuscripts sent to our Journal.

Retracción de artículos biomédicos y sus implicaciones éticas / Retraction of Biomedical Articles and its Ethical Implications / Retratação de artigos médicos e suas implicações éticas

Resumen La retracción es un mecanismo que permite la corrección de la literatura científica. Este artículo pretende demostrar que las retracciones han aumentado de manera progresiva, y sobresalen las del ámbito médico. Metodológicamente es un artículo de revisión bibliográfica, cuyos datos estadísticos se obtuvieron de estudios sobre artículos retractados, publicados entre el 2012 y el 2017, en inglés, desde las bases de datos de PubMed y Google Scholar. Entre los resultados sobresalientes se encuentran como causas más frecuentes de retracción: plagio, mala conducta, errores, fabricación y duplicación. La mayor incidencia reportada fue en Estados Unidos (EE. UU.), India, China, Japón y Alemania. El mayor índice de retracción fue para las revistas de factor de impacto bajo. El tiempo transcurrido para la retracción es largo, aunque ha disminuido. Esto permite que se citen estos artículos y se origine así una mala ciencia. Se concluye que se requiere de uniformidad en las notas y las reglas de retracción, así como señalizar de forma adecuada los artículos retractados, además de disminuir el tiempo para que esta se efectúe. En relación con la bioética, se revela un grave problema en la integridad de la literatura científica, así como un posible impacto de las retracciones en la salud de las personas.

Abstract Retraction is a mechanism to correct scientific literature. This article aims to demonstrate that retractions have gradually increased, especially in the medical field. Methodologically, it is a literature review article whose statistical data were obtained from studies on retraction articles published in English between 2012 to 2017 in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Some of the most frequent causes of retraction found were plagiarism, misconduct, errors, fabrication and duplication. The highest incidence rate was reported in the United States, India, China, Japan and Germany. The highest retraction rate was for low-impact journals. The time for retraction is long but has decreased, which allows these articles to be cited and bad science to arise. It is concluded that uniformity is needed in notes and rules of retraction, retracted articles should be marked appropriately, and time for retraction must be reduced. In relation to bioethics, there is a serious problem in the integrity of scientific literature and a possible impact of retractions on the health of people.

Resumo A retratação é um mecanismo que permite a correção da literatura científica. Este artigo pretende demonstrar que as retratações vêm aumentando e que as do âmbito médico têm se ressaltado. Trata-se de um artigo de revisão bibliográfica, cujos dados estatísticos foram obtidos de estudos sobre artigos retratados, publicados entre 2012 e 2017, em inglês, das bases de dados de PubMed e Google Scholar. Entre os resultados destacados, encontram-se como causas mais frequentes de retratação: plágio, má conduta, erros, fabricação e duplicação. A maior incidência relatada foi nos Estados Unidos, na Índia, na China, no Japão e na Alemanha. O maior índice de retratação foi para as revistas de fator de impacto baixo. O tempo transcorrido para a retratação é longo, embora tenha diminuído. Isso permite que esses artigos sejam citados e seja originada uma má ciência. Conclui-se que se requer de padronização nas notas de retratação ou erratas, bem como indicar, de forma adequada, os artigos retratados, além de diminuir o tempo para que isso ocorra. Quanto à bioética, revela-se um grave problema na integridade da literatura científica e um possível impacto das retratações na saúde das pessoas.

Plagiarism in the Context of Education and Evolving Detection Strategies

Plagiarism may take place in any scientific journals despite currently employed anti-plagiarism tools. The absence of widely acceptable definitions of research misconduct and reliance solely on similarity checks do not allow journal editors to prevent most complex cases of recycling of scientific information and wasteful, or ‘predatory,’ publishing. This article analyses Scopus-based publication activity and evidence on poor writing, lack of related training, emerging anti-plagiarism strategies, and new forms of massive wasting of resources by publishing largely recycled items, which evade the ‘red flags’ of similarity checks. In some non-Anglophone countries ‘copy-and-paste’ writing still plagues pre- and postgraduate education. Poor research management, absence of courses on publication ethics, and limited access to quality sources confound plagiarism as a cross-cultural and multidisciplinary phenomenon. Over the past decade, the advent of anti-plagiarism software checks has helped uncover elementary forms of textual recycling across journals. But such a tool alone proves inefficient for preventing complex forms of plagiarism. Recent mass retractions of plagiarized articles by reputable open-access journals point to critical deficiencies of current anti-plagiarism software that do not recognize manipulative paraphrasing and editing. Manipulative editing also finds its way to predatory journals, ignoring the adherence to publication ethics and accommodating nonsense plagiarized items. The evolving preventive strategies are increasingly relying on intelligent (semantic) digital technologies, comprehensively evaluating texts, keywords, graphics, and reference lists. It is the right time to enforce adherence to global editorial guidance and implement a comprehensive anti-plagiarism strategy by helping all stakeholders of scholarly communication.

How to Act When Research Misconduct Is Not Detected by Software but Revealed by the Author of the Plagiarized Article

The detection of plagiarism in scholarly articles is a complex process. It requires not just quantitative analysis with the similarity recording by anti-plagiarism software but also assessment of the readers' opinion, pointing to the theft of ideas, methodologies, and graphics. In this article we describe a blatant case of plagiarism by Chinese authors, who copied a Russian article from a non-indexed and not widely visible Russian journal, and published their own report in English in an open-access journal indexed by Scopus and Web of Science and archived in PubMed Central. The details of copying in the translated English article were presented by the Russian author to the chief editor of the index journal, consultants from Scopus, anti-plagiarism experts, and the administrator of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The correspondents from Scopus and COPE pointed to the decisive role of the editors' of the English journal who may consider further actions if plagiarism is confirmed. After all, the chief editor of the English journal retracted the article on grounds of plagiarism and published a retraction note, although no details of the complexity of the case were reported. The case points to the need for combining anti-plagiarism efforts and actively seeking opinion of non-native English-speaking authors and readers who may spot intellectual theft which is not always detected by software.

Scientific retraction: a synonym for pseudoscience? / Retractación científica: un sinónimo de seudociencia? / Retratação científica: um sinônimo de pseudociência?

The phenomenon of scientific retraction is a shameful act for the scientific community, but a necessity to maintain the purity of science. The two main causes for retractions include plagiarism and research misconduct. The post retraction citation of articles is again a repetition of inappropriateness. Hence the editorial, peer review policies should be revised and the retractions should be publicized more to avoid the citation of the invalid literature. Also, the scientific readership has a responsibility to evaluate the scientific validity of published studies.

El fenómeno de la retractación científica constituye una vergüenza para la comunidad científica, pero es necesario para mantener la pureza de la ciencia. Las dos causas principales de retractación son el plagio y faltas en la conducta de investigación. La citación de artículos posterior a su retractación es, de nuevo, una repetición inapropiada. Por lo tanto, la editorial y las normas de evaluación por pares debieran revisarse y las retractaciones publicarse más para evitar las citaciones de literatura inválida. También los lectores científicos tienen la responsabilidad de evaluar la validez científica de los estudios publicados.

O fenômeno de retratação científica é uma vergonhosa atitude para a comunidade científica, mas uma necessidade para manter a pureza da ciência. As duas principais causas para a retratação incluem o plágio e a má conduta na pesquisa. A citação após retratação de artigos é novamente uma repetida inadequação. Daí porque o editorial e a política de revisão por pares devem ser revistas e as retratações deveriam ser mais divulgadas para evitar uma citação inválida da literatura. Ademais, o revisor científico tem uma responsabilidade de avaliar a validade científica dos estudos publicados.