Radiation Research Society. Scientific Fraud: An Editor-in-Chief s Perspective. Marc S. Mendonca, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief Radiation Research

Transcription

1 Scientific Fraud: An Editor-in-Chief s Perspective Marc S. Mendonca, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief Radiation Research

2 374 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!

3 143 Manuscripts and 1,331 Pages published

4

5 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

6

7 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.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 Ghost Authorship

16

17 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

18 1) Is research misconduct black and white? 2) Is there a distinct line between ethical and non ethical behavior?

19

20 Three myths about scientific misconduct:

21 Three myths about scientific misconduct: 1) Only bad apples get into trouble

22 Three myths about scientific misconduct: 1) Only bad apples get into trouble 2) Scientific skills are enough to do good science

23 Three myths about scientific misconduct: 1) Only bad apples get into trouble 2) Scientific skills are enough to do good science 3) The more publications and grants the better

24 Why do people do this?

25 Why do people do this?

26

27 How big a problem is Scientific Misconduct?

28 How big a problem is Scientific Misconduct?

29 How big a problem is Scientific Misconduct? If you do a PubMed search on Scientific Misconduct, how many citation hits will you get?

30 How big a problem is Scientific Misconduct? If you do a PubMed search on Scientific Misconduct, how many citation hits will you get? ~5,000!

31

32

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

34 How many papers have been retracted?

35 How many papers have been retracted? S.L. George and M. Buyse, Clin. Invest. (London) 5: (2015)

36 Is scientific misconduct or the lack of reproducibly something new?

37 Is scientific misconduct or the lack of reproducibly something new? Robert Boyle 350 years ago reported: D.S. Kornfeld and S.L. Titus, Nature 537: (2016)

38 Is scientific misconduct or the lack of reproducibly something new? D.S. Kornfeld and S.L. Titus, Nature 537: (2016)

39 Are men more likely than women to commit scientific fraud?

40 Are men more likely than women to commit scientific fraud? A. Kaatz, P.N. Vogelman, M. Carnes, mbio 4: e

41 What to do?

42

43

44

45

46

47

48 Questions?