Integrity at stake: confronting "publish or perish" in the developing world and emerging economies.

The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the "publish or perish" culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of "paper mills," and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

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.

Research integrity guidelines and safeguards in Brazil.

Brazilian research output has been growing annually, and so have its domestic and international research collaborations. Accordingly, it is essential to harmonize research integrity guidance and regulations to ensure research quality. Therefore, this study aims to collect and analyze guidance documents on research integrity from Brazilian research performing organizations (RPO). Research integrity guidance documents, regulations, and policies were retrieved from 60 randomly selected universities in Brazil. The search was conducted via the universities' websites and confirmed by e-mail. The documents were analyzed based on inductive content analysis. Relevant documents from 20 RPOs were identified. 28% of the included institutions have developed their own guidelines or adopted some guidance document on research integrity. Best practices, misconduct and misbehaviors, principles, and institutional policies regarding sanctions differ between universities. The RPOs where research integrity guidance documents could be identified are concentrated mainly in the southeastern and southern areas. The number and distribution heterogeneity highlights the need to increase awareness and create regulatory documents on research integrity in Brazilian universities. Further Research Performing and Funding Organizations' initiatives are needed to foster research integrity in Brazil and harmonize it with international standards.

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.

Research integrity guidelines in the academic environment: The context of Brazilian institutions with retracted publications in health and life sciences.

Although research misconduct is responsible for most retractions in health and life sciences from authors affiliated with Brazilian institutions, there are few studies evaluating retraction notices and research misconduct in the country. Understanding the form of research misconduct may share light on the weaknesses and strengths of individual, organizational, and structural factors toward the implementation of a research integrity culture. This review on policies and practices aims to access the available information from research integrity offices and the guidelines from Brazilian funding institutions and universities who were involved in retractions in health and life science publications based on a previously published systematic review. Additionally, we summarize the available guidelines and policies for research integrity in the country. Additionally, we searched publicly available guidelines and offices for research integrity. In total, 15 institutions were analyzed: five funding agencies and 10 universities. Approximately 40% of the funding agencies promoted local research, and 60% promoted national research. Considering national funding agencies, 66% had the commission on research integrity. Approximately 30% of the universities do not have the official office for research integrity or any publicly available guidelines. Most institutions involved in retractions due to some form of research misconduct. Brazilian institutions involved in publication retractions lack instruments to prevent, supervise, and sanction research misconduct. Institutions of the country have insufficiently developed a system to promote and sustain research integrity practices. Nevertheless, there is a positive movement of researchers who are engaged in the investigation of research integrity, policy creation and training. This study emphasizes increased influence of Brazilian scientific collaboration and production globally as well as the impact of retractions in medical sciences. In contrast, it addresses the need for clear research integrity policies to foster high-quality and trustworthy research.

Urgência da geração de conhecimento durante a pandemia de covid-19: um retrospecto sobre a integridade em publicações em saúde / Urgency of knowledge generation during the covid-19 pandemic: a retrospective on health publication integrity / Urgencia de generación de conocimiento durante la pandemia de covid-19: una retrospectiva a la integridad en las publicaciones sobre salud

Durante a pandemia de covid-19, foi observado um aumento expressivo do número de publicações (artigos e preprints), que levou ao rápido compartilhamento de informações e incentivou a discussão sobre a integridade científica na geração do conhecimento durante emergências sanitárias. Nesse sentido, o objetivo deste trabalho foi o de realizar uma breve análise do cenário referente à integridade em pesquisa em publicações em saúde durante a pandemia de covid-19. Para isso, fizemos uma pesquisa documental em sites de organizações com histórico de promoção da cultura da integridade. Verificamos como a urgência de geração de conhecimento acelerou, de forma positiva, o debate sobre ética e integridade em pesquisa e ciência aberta. Por outro lado, esse contexto expôs pontos críticos, como práticas questionáveis e/ou fraude em pesquisa. Ações educativas em instituições de pesquisa que visem à implementação e à manutenção da cultura da integridade podem contribuir significativamente para transformações positivas no sistema de pesquisa

During the covid-19 pandemic, a significant increase in the number of publications (articles and preprints) was observed, which led to the rapid sharing of information and encouraged the discussion about scientific integrity in the generation of knowledge during health emergencies. In this sense, the present work aims to analyze research integrity in health publications during the covid-19 pandemic. For this goal, we conducted documentary research on websites of organizations that promote the culture of research integrity. We verified how the urgency of generating knowledge positively accelerated the debate on ethics and integrity in research and open science. On the other hand, this context exposed critical points, such as questionable research practices, and/or research fraud. Educational actions in research institutions aimed at implementing and maintaining a culture of integrity can significantly contribute to positive changes in the research system.

Durante la pandemia de covid-19, se observó un aumento en el número de publicaciones (artículos y preprints), lo que condujo al rápido intercambio de información y fomentó la discusión sobre la integridad científica en la generación de conocimiento durante las emergencias sanitarias. El objetivo de este trabajo fue realizar un análisis sobre la integridad de la investigación en publicaciones de salud durante la pandemia de covid-19. Realizamos una investigación documental en sitios web de organizaciones con trayectoria en la promoción de una cultura de integridad. Comprobamos cómo la urgencia de generar conocimiento aceleró positivamente el debate sobre ética e integridad en la investigación y la ciencia abierta, pero expuso puntos críticos, tales como prácticas cuestionables y/o fraude de investigación. Las acciones educativas en instituciones de investigación dirigidas a implementar y mantener una cultura de integridad pueden contribuir a cambios positivos en el sistema de investigación.

Responsabilização em más condutas científicas: opinião de editores do SciELO / Accountability to scientific misconduct: the SciELO editors' view / Responsabilidad por malas conductas científicas: opinión de los editores de SciELO

Responsabilização (accountability) em comunicação e editoração científica é um importante tema em ética e integridade em pesquisa, e um dos grandes desafios atuais da ciência. Este artigo apresenta um estudo descritivo sobre a responsabilização e os seus atores na comunicação científica (autores, revisores, editores), partindo da questão da responsabilização desses atores e das más condutas científicas vista por editores de revista SciELO do Brasil e de países da América Latina. Apresenta resultados a partir da visão dos editores em que os autores são responsáveis, e, parcialmente, os revisores e os próprios editores

Accountability in scientific communication and publishing is an important topic in ethics and research integrity, and one of the great challenges of science today. This article presents a descriptive study on accountability and its actors in scientific communication (authors, reviewers, editors), starting from the issue of accountability of these actors and from the scientific misconducts viewed by SciELO journals editors in Brazil and Latin America. Based on the editors' view, it stands that the authors are responsible, and the reviewers and the editors are partially responsible

La responsabilidad (accountability) en la comunicación y publicación científica es un tema importante en la ética y la integridad en la investigación, y uno de los grandes desafíos de la ciencia actual. Este artículo presenta un estudio descriptivo sobre la responsabilidad y sus actores en la comunicación científica (autores, revisores, editores), a partir de la cuestión de responsabilidad de estos actores y de las malas conductas científicas vista por los editores de revista SciELO en Brasil y en países de América Latina. Presenta resultados en la visión de los editores de que los autores son responsables, y los revisores y los propios editores son parcialmente responsables.

Frequency of receiving requested data for a systematic review and associated factors: A cross-sectional study.

This study aimed to assess the frequency of receiving requested data for a systematic review and associated factors. We contacted the authors of studies in need of additional data via e-mail. The primary outcome was the success in receiving the requested data according to the time until receipt. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for success in each variable compared to the reference category, with weighted Cox proportional hazards models using Stata (version 14.2). Out of 164 studies contacted, 110 replied (67.1%), and 51 sent requested data (31.1%). Median time to receive a response or withdraw contact was 36.0 days (interquartile range: 17.5, 142.5). Higher success ratio was observed in studies published as scientific papers (HR = 3.01, 95% CI = [1.18, 7.70]), in more than one publication (HR = 2.00, 95% CI = [1.14, 3.51]), and contacted by personal e-mail (HR = 2.85, 95% CI = [1.34, 6.07]). Three or more contact attempts led to lower success ratio (HR = 0.19, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.35]) than one or two. Requesting data for a systematic review was time-consuming and effective in three out of ten studies. Fewer contacts were more successful than insisting.

Scientists under the societal microscope: challenges to research integrity / Cientistas sob o microscópio da sociedade: desafios para a integridade da investigação / Científicos bajo el microscopio de la sociedad: desafíos para la integridad de la investigación

COVID-19 promises to reshape every aspect of society, not excluding how science is perceived.However, it is not clear whether the authority of science and scientists will be enhanced or diminished, or whether such changes will affect mainly science as an endeavour or scientists as individuals. The aim of this paper is to analyzehow a pandemic like COVID-19 could undermined the confidence in science and scientist and, to underline now, more thanever, the importance of trust in science and in scientists. Two main issues will be analyzed: first, we will analyzehow putting science and scientists in the spotlight could impact science and scientists and, secondly, we will go through the history of COVID treatment and research to anticipate how misconduct and breaches on responsible conduct in research could undermine trust in science with serious risks and consequences.

A pandemia da COVID-19 terá influências indeléveis em todos os sectores da sociedade, não excluindo a forma como a ciência é percecionada. No entanto, hoje, não se sabe como a confiança na ciência e nos cientistas será afectada pela pandemia e se tais mudanças afetarão principalmente a ciência como um empreendimento ou os cientistas como indivíduos. Assim, o objetivo deste artigo é analisar como uma pandemia como a COVID-19 pode afectar a confiança na ciência e nos cientistas e sublinhar, numa alturatão crítica para todos, a importância da confiança na ciência e nos cientistas. Duas questões principais serão analisadas: primeiro, como o facto de colocar a ciência e os cientistas no centro das atenções e das decisões poderá impactar a forma como a sociedade confia e acredita na ciência e nos cientistas e, em segundo lugar, a história dos progressos e retrocessos nos tratamentos e na investigação científica sobre a pandemia para, desse modo, destacarmos-mos a importância da integridade científica e, mais de que nunca, da necessidade de condutas responsáveis em investigação.

La COVID-19 promete remodelar todos los aspectos de la sociedad, sin excluir cómo se percibe laciencia. Sin embargo, no está claro si la autoridad de la ciencia y los científicos aumentará o disminuirá, o si tales cambios afectarán principalmente a la ciencia como esfuerzo o a los científicos como individuos.El objetivo de este trabajo es analizarcómo una pandemia como COVID-19 podría socavar la confianza en la ciencia y los científicos y, subrayar ahora, más que nunca, la importancia de la confianza en la ciencia y en los científicos. Dos temas principales serán los que analizar: primero, analizaremos cómo poner a la ciencia y los científicos en el centro de atención podría impactar a la ciencia y los científicos y, en segundo lugar, repasaremos la historia del tratamiento y la investigación de COVID para anticipar cómo la mala conducta y las infracciones a la conducta responsable. en la investigación podría socavar la confianza en la ciencia con graves riesgos y consecuencias.

Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study.

INTRODUCTION: University ranking systems and the publish-or-perish dictum, among other factors, are driving universities and researchers around the world to increase their research productivity. Authors frequently report multiple affiliations in published articles. It is not known if the reported institutional affiliations are real affiliations, which is when the universities have contributed substantially to the research conducted and to the published manuscript. This study aims to establish whether there is an empirical basis for author affiliation misrepresentation in authors with multiple institutional affiliations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This individual secondary data exploratory analysis on Scopus-indexed articles for 2016 will search all authors who report multiple institutional affiliations in which at least one of the affiliations is to a Chilean university. We will consider that misrepresentation of an affiliation is more likely when it is not possible to verify objectively a link between the author and the mentioned institution through institutional websites. If we cannot corroborate the author affiliation, we will consider this a finding of potential misrepresentation of the affiliation. We will summarise results with descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Resolution No. 261, and dated January 15, 2018. Results will be submitted to the World Conference on Research Integrity, among other meetings on publication ethics and research integrity, and will be published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

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.

National Scientific Misconduct Policies in Argentina: Two Definitions of Research Misconduct.

In "An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies", Resnik et al. count Argentina in the list of countries without national research misconduct policies. In this paper, we clarify that Argentina has national policies of research misconduct and present the research misconduct definitions of two official science organisms: the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the Ethics Committee of the Argentine Ministry of Science (MINCyT).

A publicação como obsessão, a pressão como efeito e a integridade como discurso/desafio: uma análise crítico-provocativa da cientometria vigente / Publication as an obsession, pressure as an effect and integrity as a discourse/challenge: a critical-provocative analysis of the scientometrics in effect / La publicación como obsesión, la presión como efecto y la integridad como discurso/desafío: un análisis crítico provocativo de la cientometria vigente

Neste texto, em resposta ao gentil convite feito pelos editores, dedico-me a refletir sobre: (1) o valor conferido à publicação em periódicos acadêmico-científicos; (2) alguns problemas relativos à adoção de indicadores quantitativos utilizados na cientometria/bibliometria atuais para avaliar a 'qualidade' da ciência; (3) alguns dos limites práticos do discurso normativo da integridade em pesquisa, especialmente em razão do contexto da pressão por publicação ("publicar ou perecer"). Para isso, recorro aos argumentos que venho sustentando ao longo dos últimos anos, reforçando e desenvolvendo alguns pontos que julgo centrais no presente debate.

In this text, in response to the kind invitation received from the editors, I dedicate myself to reflecting on: (1) the value placed on publications in academic-scientific journals; (2) some problems related to the adoption of quantitative indicators by the current scientometrics/bibliometrics to evaluate the 'quality' of science; (3) some of the practical limits of the normative discourse on research integrity, especially due to the pressure to publish context ("publish or perish"). For that, I resort to the arguments that I have been supporting over the last years, reinforcing and developing some points that I consider central to the present debate.

En este texto, en respuesta a la gentil invitación realizada por los editores, dedícome a reflexionar sobre: (1) el valor atribuido a la publicación en periódicos académico-científicos; (2) algunos problemas relativos a la adopción de indicadores cuantitativos utilizados en la cientometria/bibliometria actuales para evaluar la "calidad" de la ciencia; (3) algunos de los límites prácticos del discurso normativo de la integridad en investigación, especialmente en la razón del contexto de presión por publicaciones ("publicar o perecer"). Para esto, recorro a los argumentos que vengo sosteniendo a lo largo de los últimos años, reforzando y desarrollando algunos puntos que juzgo centrales en el presente debate.

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, Cheating and Research Integrity: Case Studies from a Masters Program in Peru.

Plagiarism is a serious, yet widespread type of research misconduct, and is often neglected in developing countries. Despite its far-reaching implications, plagiarism is poorly acknowledged and discussed in the academic setting, and insufficient evidence exists in Latin America and developing countries to inform the development of preventive strategies. In this context, we present a longitudinal case study of seven instances of plagiarism and cheating arising in four consecutive classes (2011-2014) of an Epidemiology Masters program in Lima, Peru, and describes the implementation and outcomes of a multifaceted, "zero-tolerance" policy aimed at introducing research integrity. Two cases involved cheating in graded assignments, and five cases correspond to plagiarism in the thesis protocol. Cases revealed poor awareness of high tolerance to plagiarism, poor academic performance, and widespread writing deficiencies, compensated with patchwriting and copy-pasting. Depending on the events' severity, penalties included course failure (6/7) and separation from the program (3/7). Students at fault did not engage in further plagiarism. Between 2011 and 2013, the Masters program sequentially introduced a preventive policy consisting of: (i) intensified research integrity and scientific writing education, (ii) a stepwise, cumulative writing process; (iii) honor codes; (iv) active search for plagiarism in all academic products; and (v) a "zero-tolerance" policy in response to documented cases. No cases were detected in 2014. In conclusion, plagiarism seems to be widespread in resource-limited settings and a greater response with educational and zero-tolerance components is needed to prevent it.

Inappropriate statistical method in a parallel-group randomized controlled trial results in unsubstantiated conclusions.

The conclusions of Cassani et al. in the January 2015 issue of Nutrition Journal (doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-14-5 ) cannot be substantiated by the analysis reported nor by the data themselves. The authors ascribed the observed decrease in inflammatory markers to the components of flaxseed and based their conclusions on within-group comparisons made between the final and the baseline measurements separately in each arm of the randomized controlled trial. However, this is an improper approach and the conclusions of the paper are invalid. A correct analysis of the data shows no such effects.

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.

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.

Addressing conflicts of interest in the research paper: a societal demand in contemporary science?

In the last decade, dialogue between science and society has found a forum in an increasing number of publications on topics such as public engagement with science and public trust in science. Concerning the latter, issues that include cases of research misconduct, accountability in research, and conflicts of interest (COIs) have shaped global discussions on the communication of science. In the publication setting, the perception that hiding COIs and/or not managing them well may affect public trust in the research record has grown among editors. We conducted a search for editorials addressing COIs between 1989 and 2011, using four major databases: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. We explored the content of these editorials and the relationship they established between COIs and the public trust in science. Our results demonstrate that the relationship between disclosure of COIs and public trust in science has become a major concern among editors. We, thus, argue that COIs should be discussed more openly and frequently in graduate courses in the sciences, around the globe, not only in biomedical but also in non-biomedical areas. This is a critical issue in contemporary science, as graduate students are the future voices and decision-makers of the research community. Therefore, COIs, especially in the broader context of science and society, merit closer attention from policymakers, researchers, and educators. At times of great expectations for public engagement with science, mishandling of COIs may have undesirable consequences for public engagement with science and confidence in the scientific endeavor.