10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      La Oficina de Integridad Científica en España. Una tarea pendiente Translated title: The Research Integrity Office in Spain. A pending issue

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen En los últimos años han salido a la luz muchos casos de mala conducta científica, algunos con importantes consecuencias, que han evidenciado las brechas que globalmente existen en cuanto a integridad científica. En España también se han dado casos notables de mala conducta científica en el ámbito de la investigación biomédica. Sin embargo, hasta el momento no se ha creado un organismo encargado de supervisar las fases de ejecución, análisis y publicación de las investigaciones biomédicas desde un punto de vista ético. Por lo tanto, en este contexto, consideramos que es necesaria la creación de una oficina que supervise la integridad científica en España y que actúe en caso de sospecha de mala conducta científica, llevando a cabo una investigación independiente y con capacidad sancionadora. La existencia de dicho organismo sería de especial importancia en el caso de las investigaciones financiadas con fondos públicos, ya que en ese caso el fraude en investigación supondría la malversación de dinero público. La creación de una oficina que realmente actúe frente a los casos detectados podría tener un efecto disuasorio sobre una potencial mala conducta de algunos investigadores, previniendo así situaciones de mala conducta científica.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.

          A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications

            The number of retracted scientific articles has been increasing. Most retractions are associated with research misconduct, entailing financial costs to funding sources and damage to the careers of those committing misconduct. We sought to calculate the magnitude of these effects. Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors

              ABSTRACT Objective To analyze the causes of retracted publications and the main characteristics of their authors. Method A descriptive cross-sectional study was designed including all retracted publications from January 1st, 2013-December 31st, 2016 indexed in PubMed. The causes of retraction were classified as: data management, authorship issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other causes, and unknown reasons. Then, misbehaviour was classified as misconduct, suspicion of misconduct or no misconduct suspicion. Results 1,082 retracted publications were identified. The retraction rate for the period was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. The main cause of retraction was misconduct (65.3%), and the leading reasons were plagiarism, data management and compromise of the review process. The highest proportion of retracted publications corresponded to Iran (15.52 per 10,000), followed by Egypt and China (11.75 and 8.26 per 10,000). Conclusions Currently, misconduct is the main cause of retraction. Specific strategies to limit this phenomenon must be implemented. It would be useful to standardize reasons and procedures for retraction. The development of a standard retraction form to be permanently indexed in a database might be relevant.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                gs
                Gaceta Sanitaria
                Gac Sanit
                Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria (SESPAS) (Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain )
                0213-9111
                December 2022
                : 36
                : 6
                : 557-560
                Affiliations
                [3] Granada orgnameEscuela Andaluza de Salud Pública España
                [5] orgnameCIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública España
                [4] Alicante Valencia orgnameUniversidad de Alicante orgdiv1Grupo de Investigación en Salud Pública Spain
                [2] Santiago de Compostela A Coruña orgnameInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela España
                [1] Santiago de Compostela A Coruña orgnameUniversidad de Santiago de Compostela orgdiv1Área de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública España
                Article
                S0213-91112022000600013 S0213-9111(22)03600600013
                10.1016/j.gaceta.2022.02.005
                aef35aaf-c384-4981-9c1d-ef8fb68664c3

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 01 February 2022
                : 01 October 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 13, Pages: 4
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Artículo Especial

                Scientific research,Office of research integrity,Spain,Mala conducta científica,España,Oficina de integridad científica,Investigación científica,Ética en la investigación,Scientific misconduct,Research ethics

                Comments

                Comment on this article