P.1.l.001 Publication pressure and scientific misconduct: implications for medical science

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S360-S361
Author(s):  
J. Tijdink ◽  
Y.M. Smulders ◽  
A.C.M. Vergoüwen
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Publication Pressure

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erfan Shamsoddin ◽  
Leila Janani ◽  
Kiandokht Ghamari ◽  
Payam Kabiri ◽  
Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Validity Indices ◽  
Item Level ◽  
Final Questionnaire ◽  
Publication Pressure

Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.

Publication Pressure and Scientific Misconduct in Medical Scientists

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 64-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joeri K. Tijdink ◽  
Reinout Verbeke ◽  
Yvo M. Smulders
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Publication Pressure

scholarly journals Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariola Paruzel-Czachura ◽  
Lidia Baran ◽  
Zbigniew Spendel
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Current System ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
The Future ◽  
Honorary Authorship ◽  
Managerial Positions ◽  
Publication Pressure ◽  
Future 2 ◽  
The Relationship

The article aims to examine the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants (N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants (N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most popular scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they definitely had not violated ethical standards in the past, but 51% of the participants were aware of their colleagues’ scientific misconduct. Participants reported a significantly higher level of dishonesty among others compared to their scientific misconduct. Individuals observing strong publication pressure in their colleagues were also aware of their colleagues’ practices violating ethical standards. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. Only 3% of the participants stated that the current system of evaluating their research work was fully satisfactory. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) were aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants observe publication pressure in their subordinates. Three main conclusions are: 1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; 2) our results attest to the problem of scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, observed both by researchers themselves (particularly in their colleagues) and by their superiors; 3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report an intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future, and individuals in managerial positions observing publication pressure in their subordinates also observe their dishonest research practices.

scholarly journals Factors Associated with Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Maggio ◽  
Ting Dong ◽  
Erik W. Driessen ◽  
Anthony R. Artino
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Health Professions Education ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Publication Pressure ◽  
Frequency Score

AbstractIntroductionEngaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this article seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices.MethodIn 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items derived from two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale adapted from the literature. The study outcome was the self-reported misconduct frequency score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis.Results and DiscussionIn total, 590 researchers took the survey. Results from the regression analysis indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct frequency score (b = −.01, t = −2.91, p<.05) suggesting that older researchers tended to have lower misconduct frequency scores. Publication pressure (b = .20, t = 7.82, p<.001) and number of publications (b = .001, t = 3.27, p<.01) had positive associations with the misconduct frequency score. The greater the publication pressure or the more publications a researcher reported, the higher the misconduct frequency score. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct frequency score, and publication pressure was the strongest predictor. These findings provide an evidence base from which HPE might tailor strategies to address scientific misconduct and QRPs.

scholarly journals Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research

2020 ◽  
pp. 174701612098056
Author(s):  
Mariola Paruzel-Czachura ◽  
Lidia Baran ◽  
Zbigniew Spendel
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future ◽  
Honorary Authorship ◽  
Publication Pressure ◽  
Future 2 ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Willingness To Engage

The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants ( N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants ( N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most common reported form of scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they had not violated ethical standards in the past; 3% admitted to scientific misconduct; 51% reported being were aware of colleagues’ scientific misconduct. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) reported being aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants report observing publication pressure in their subordinates. The primary conclusions are: (1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; (2) scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, is frequently observed both by researchers (particularly in their colleagues) and by their managers; (3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report a willingness to engage in scientific misconduct in the future.

scholarly journals Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
Julia Heuritsch
Keyword(s):  
Science Studies ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Organisational Culture ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Organisational Justice ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Publication Pressure

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies that explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organisational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers with the following questions: (1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e., dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive and organisational justice? (2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 10% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7% and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive and organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and, hence, research quality.

Spiritual Healing, Sick Kids and the Law: Inequities in the American Healthcare System

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 269-299
Author(s):  
Janna C. Merrick
Keyword(s):  
Medical Science ◽  
Spiritual Healing ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Divine Love ◽  
Religious Minority ◽  
Human Need ◽  
East End ◽  
The Church

Main Street in Sarasota, Florida. A high-tech medical arts building rises from the east end, the county's historic three-story courthouse is two blocks to the west and sandwiched in between is the First Church of Christ, Scientist. A verse inscribed on the wall behind the pulpit of the church reads: “Divine Love Always Has Met and Always Will Meet Every Human Need.” This is the church where William and Christine Hermanson worshipped. It is just a few steps away from the courthouse where they were convicted of child abuse and third-degree murder for failing to provide conventional medical care for their seven-year-old daughter.This Article is about the intersection of “divine love” and “the best interests of the child.” It is about a pluralistic society where the dominant culture reveres medical science, but where a religious minority shuns and perhaps fears that same medical science. It is also about the struggle among different religious interests to define the legal rights of the citizenry.

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-15
Author(s):  
Steven L. Demeter
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Left Ventricular Hypertrophy ◽  
Ventricular Hypertrophy ◽  
Left Ventricular Mass Index ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Hypertensive Disease ◽  
Accurate Analysis ◽  
Clear Explanation

Abstract The fourth, fifth, and sixth editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) use left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) as a variable to determine impairment caused by hypertensive disease. The issue of LVH, as assessed echocardiographically, is a prime example of medical science being at odds with legal jurisprudence. Some legislatures have allowed any cause of LVH in a hypertensive individual to be an allowed manifestation of hypertensive changes. This situation has arisen because a physician can never say that no component of LVH was not caused by the hypertension, even in an individual with a cardiomyopathy or valvular disorder. This article recommends that evaluators consider three points: if the cause of the LVH is hypertension, is the examinee at maximum medical improvement; is the LVH caused by hypertension or another factor; and, if apportionment is allowed, then a careful analysis of the risk factors for other disorders associated with LVH is necessary. The left ventricular mass index should be present in the echocardiogram report and can guide the interpretation of the alleged LVH; if not present, it should be requested because it facilitates a more accurate analysis. Further, if the cause of the LVH is more likely independent of the hypertension, then careful reasoning and an explanation should be included in the impairment report. If hypertension is only a partial cause, a reasoned analysis and clear explanation of the apportionment are required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document