Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders.

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

Perceptions of plagiarism among PhDs across the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts: Results from a national survey in Brazil.

Plagiarism allegations are not rare in the history of science, and credit for prior work was and continues to be a source of disputes, involving notions of priority of discovery and of plagiarism. However, consensus over what constitutes plagiarism among scientists from different fields cannot be taken for granted. We conducted a national survey exploring perceptions of plagiarism among PhD holders registered in the database of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. This survey was sent to 143,405 PhD holders across the fields, in the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts, with a response rate of about 20%. The results suggest that core principles about plagiarism are shared among this multidisciplinary community, corroborating Robert K. Merton's observations that concerns over plagiarism and priority disputes are not field specific. This study offers insight into the way plagiarism is perceived in this community and sheds light on the problem for international collaborative research networks. The data focus on a particular research system in Latin America, but, given the cultural similarities that bind most Latin American nations, these results may be relevant to other PhD populations in the region and should provide an opportunity for comparison with studies from other emerging, non-Anglophone regions.

Ética, integridade científica e pandemia de covid-19: diálogo e desafios entre as dimensões socioculturais e linguísticas e a comunicação da ciência / Ethics, scientific integrity and the covid-19 pandemic: dialogue and challenges between sociocultural and linguistic dimensions and science communication / Ética, integridad científica y la pandemia de covid-19: diálogo y desafíos entre las dimensiones socioculturales y lingüísticas y la comunicación de la ciencia

Em entrevista à Reciis, a professora e cientista Sonia Vasconcelos relata sobre a sua trajetória profissional e acadêmica que a aproximou do campo da ética e da integridade científica. Destaca sobre o quanto as dimensões históricas, sociais, culturais e linguísticas da comunicação científica estão implicadas nas percepções e nos pressupostos da integridade na ciência. Conforme a pesquisadora, a pandemia de covid-19, que desencadeou uma maior velocidade de publicação, correção de literatura científica e a explosão de preprints e as suas certificações em curto espaço de tempo, promoveu mudanças e desafios para o aprimoramento das políticas sobre ética e integridade na comunicação da ciência. Sonia Vasconcelos é professora do Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM) da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), atuando na área de Educação, Gestão e Difusão em Biociências do IBqM.

In an interview to Reciis, professor and scientist Sonia Vasconcelos reports on her professional and academic trajectory that brought her closer to the field of ethics and scientific integrity. She highlights how the historical, social, cultural, and linguistic dimensions of scientific communication are implicated in the perceptions and assumptions of integrity in science. According to the researcher, the covid-19 pandemic, which led to a greater speed of publication, correction of the literature, and the explosion of preprints in a short period of time, triggered changes to and increased challenges toward improving policies on ethics and integrity in science communication. Sonia Vasconcelos is a professor at Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM) at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), working in the science education and policy area of IBqM.

En entrevista con Reciis, la profesora y científica Sonia Vasconcelos relata su trayectoria profesional y académica que la acercó al campo de la ética y la integridad científica. Destaca cómo las dimensiones históricas, sociales, culturales y lingüísticas de la comunicación científica están involucradas en las percepciones y supuestos de integridad en la ciencia. De acuerdo con la investigadora, la pandemia de covid-19, que desencadenó una mayor velocidad de publicación, corrección de la literatura científica y la explosión de preprints y sus certificaciones en un corto período de tiempo, promovió cambios y desafíos para la mejora de las políticas en materia de ética y integridad en la comunicación de la ciencia. Sonia Vasconcelos es profesora del Instituto Leopoldo de Meis de Bioquímica Médica (IBqM) de la Universidad Federal de Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), actuando en el área de educación científica y política del IBqM

An ongoing science-society-ethics experiment: The human challenge trial debate in COVID-19 pandemic: The human challenge trial debate in COVID-19 pandemic.

Human challenge trials to deliberately infect volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 should inspire wider debates about research ethics and participants' motivations to take part in such studies.

Compliance with National Ethics Requirements for Human-Subject Research in Non-biomedical Sciences in Brazil: A Changing Culture?

Ethics regulation for human-subject research (HSR) has been established for about 20 years in Brazil. However, compliance with this regulation is controversial for non-biomedical sciences, particularly for human and social sciences (HSS), the source of a recent debate at the National Commission for Research Ethics. We hypothesized that for these fields, formal requirements for compliance with HSR regulation in graduate programs, responsible for the greatest share of Brazilian science, would be small in number. We analyzed institutional documents (collected from June 2014 to May 2015) from 171 graduate programs at six prestigious Brazilian universities in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, the states that fund most of the science conducted in Brazil. Among these programs, 149 were in HSS. The results suggest that non-compliance with standard regulation seems to be the rule in most of these programs. The data may reflect not only a resistance from scientists in these fields to comply with standard regulations for ethics in HSR but also a disciplinary tradition that seems prevalent when it comes to research ethics in HSR. However, recent encounters between Brazilian biomedical and non-biomedical scientists for debates over ethics in HSR point to a changing culture in the approach to research ethics in the country.

Going Beyond Academic Integrity Might Broaden our Understanding of Plagiarism in Science Education: A Perspective from a Study in Brazil.

Fostering innovation and creativity is a priority in the science and education policy agenda of most countries, which have advocated that innovative minds and processes will boost scientific and economic growth. While our knowledge society has embraced this view, fostering creativity is among the major challenges faced by educators and policymakers. For example, plagiarism, which may be considered a form of imitation and repetition, is a global concern at schools and universities. However, most discussions focus on academic integrity, which, we believe, leaves some gaps in the approach to the problem. As part of an ongoing project on plagiarism, science and education policy, we show results from a survey sent to 143 high-school science teachers at one of the most highly regarded federal schools in Brazil. Among respondents (n=42), about 50% admit that students plagiarize in assignments. Additionally, many of these educators suggest that the way biology, chemistry and physics are taught at school stimulates more repetition than creativity. Our findings are consistent with the need for a broader perspective on plagiarism and with initiatives to stimulate creativity and critical thinking among students. Although we offer a perspective from Brazil, it may illuminate current discussions on plagiarism, particularly in emerging countries.

Going Beyond Academic Integrity Might Broaden our Understanding of Plagiarism in Science Education: A Perspective from a Study in Brazil

ABSTRACT Fostering innovation and creativity is a priority in the science and education policy agenda of most countries, which have advocated that innovative minds and processes will boost scientific and economic growth. While our knowledge society has embraced this view, fostering creativity is among the major challenges faced by educators and policymakers. For example, plagiarism, which may be considered a form of imitation and repetition, is a global concern at schools and universities. However, most discussions focus on academic integrity, which, we believe, leaves some gaps in the approach to the problem. As part of an ongoing project on plagiarism, science and education policy, we show results from a survey sent to 143 high-school science teachers at one of the most highly regarded federal schools in Brazil. Among respondents (n=42), about 50% admit that students plagiarize in assignments. Additionally, many of these educators suggest that the way biology, chemistry and physics are taught at school stimulates more repetition than creativity. Our findings are consistent with the need for a broader perspective on plagiarism and with initiatives to stimulate creativity and critical thinking among students. Although we offer a perspective from Brazil, it may illuminate current discussions on plagiarism, particularly in emerging countries.

Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases.

This study focuses on retraction notices from two major Latin American/Caribbean indexing databases: SciELO and LILACS. SciELO includes open scientific journals published mostly in Latin America/the Caribbean, from which 10 % are also indexed by Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Journal of Citation Reports (JCR). LILACS has a similar geographical coverage and includes dissertations and conference/symposia proceedings, but it is limited to publications in the health sciences. A search for retraction notices was performed in these two databases using the keywords "retracted", "retraction" "withdrawal", "withdrawn", "removed" and "redress". Documents were manually checked to identify those that actually referred to retractions, which were then analyzed and categorized according to the reasons alleged in the notices. Dates of publication/retraction and time to retraction were also recorded. Searching procedures were performed between June and December 2014. Thirty-one retraction notices were identified, fifteen of which were in JCR-indexed journals. "Plagiarism" was alleged in six retractions of this group. Among the non-JCR journals, retraction reasons were alleged in fourteen cases, twelve of which were attributed to "plagiarism". The proportion of retracted articles for the SciELO database was approximately 0.005 %. The reasons alleged in retraction notices may be used as signposts to inform discussions in Latin America on plagiarism and research integrity. At the international level, these results suggest that the correction of the literature is becoming global and is not limited to mainstream international publications.

Brazilian Science and Research Integrity: Where are We? What Next?

Building a world-class scientific community requires first-class ingredients at many different levels: funding, training, management, international collaborations, creativity, ethics, and an understanding of research integrity practices. All over the world, addressing these practices has been high on the science policy agenda of major research systems. Universities have a central role in fostering a culture of research integrity, which has posed additional challenges for faculty, students and administrators - but also opportunities. In Brazil, the leading universities and governmental funding agencies are collaborating on this project, but much remains to be done.

Prior Publication and Redundancy in Contemporary Science: Are Authors and Editors at the Crossroads?

We discuss prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science in the context of changing perceptions of originality in the communication of research results. These perceptions have been changing in the publication realm, particularly in the last 15 years. Presenting a brief overview of the literature, we address some of the conflicts that are likely to arise between authors and editors. We illustrate our approach with conference presentations that are later published as journal articles and focus on a recent retraction of an article that had been previously published as a conference proceedings. Although we do not make definitive pronouncements on the matter-as many concepts are evolving-we do argue that conference papers that contain sufficient details for others to attempt a replication and are indexed in scientific databases such as PubMed, challenge some currently held assumptions of prior publication and originality in the sciences. Our view is that these important issues are in need of further clarification and harmonization within the science publishing community. This need is more evident when we consider current notions of research integrity when it comes to communication to peers. Revisiting long-standing views about what constitutes prior publication and developing a clearer set of guidelines for authors and editors to follow should reduce conflicts in the research environment, which already exerts considerable pressure, especially on newcomers in academia. However, while clearer guidelines are timely, developing them is only part of the challenge. The present times seem to call for deeper changes in the research and publication systems.