CCTS “Managing Research Integrity During COVID- 19” Program, May 14, 2020 Perf rform rmin ing or r revi viewin ing rese search th that is is fr free fr from fabric icatio ion, fals lsif ific icatio ion, or r pla lagia iaris ism Alex Sparreboom, PhD Professor and Lucius A. Wing Chair of Cancer Research and Treatment, College of Pharmacy
Disclaimers I hold minority viewpoints on many scientific and philosophical concepts “Truth cannot be determined by a nose count” ( Robert Millet in ‘By What Authority?’) This talk does not represent the official view of OSU (or any other organization), and may conflict with it The expressed opinions are not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary
Question of interest to this talk How can an OSU PI guard against a collaborator on a local team (or in a different department, college, or institution) committing fraud and protect herself/himself if it happens but won’t be uncovered until next year? Center for Data Fabrication
ENRIO Statement: Research integrity even more important for research during a pandemic “We urge the research community to respect the highest integrity standards in performing and reporting research for the benefit of humanity now and in the future” ( http://www.enrio.eu/) “The global outbreak of COVID- 19 … perpetuate the perception that, when it comes to the rigors of science, crisis situations demand exceptions to high standards for quality” (London and Kimmelman, Science; May 1, 2020)
Definitions Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results Fabrication is the description of experiments not actually performed, the invention of data not actually collected, and/or the reporting of these experiments and results Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record Cooking is retaining and reporting only the data that fits the theory and discarding others Trimming is the smoothing of irregularities to make the data look more accurate and precise than they really are Plagiarism is defined as re- using someone else’s words, ideas, or results
Avoiding plagiarism Plagiarism is defined under OSU’s policy and procedures concerning research misconduct as “the appropriation of the ideas, processes, results, or words of another person, without giving appropriate credit .” Many tools are available to allow you to screen your documents for copied text to ensure that all content is properly cited and to ensure originality. OSU licenses one such software, iThenticate, from the company iParadigms, for use by OSU faculty, staff, students. https://orc.osu.edu/regulations-policies/misconduct/avoiding-plagiarism/
Example of Direct Plagiarism
The Plagiarism Witch Hunt Hall of Shame “Academia has simply gone crazy on this subject; not figuratively crazy, but certifiably, clinically, sociopathically insane. I'm talking delusional, loss of contact with reality insanity. “ Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay For example, what do we think would be gained from painstakingly substituting different words from those used previously in a review article the aim of which is clearly to preserve and faithfully communicate original ideas (of self or others)? Ancient cultures who gave us the notion of plagiarism did not object to creative imitation. On the contrary, they encouraged it, knowing that there are only a limited number of good ideas in the world: “Imitation was bad only when it was disguised, or a symptom of laziness. It was not denounced simply on grounds of being ‘unoriginal.’ ” Thomas Mallon in “Stolen Words: Forays Into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism”, 1989
Present concepts of originality as a relatively recent phenomenon (1) The verbal agreement between the Greek Texts of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (aka the Synoptic problem). >20 theories have been advanced as a solution to the Synoptic problem. The two-source hypothesis (Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and a hypothetical collection called Q) The preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew and Luke, with differences Per iThenticate, >80% of Mark’s verses are rendered in black (Goodacre, 2001). Here found (often verbatim) also in Matthew, the two texts agree verbatim for a span of and >60% in Luke. >60 words.
Present concepts of originality as a relatively recent phenomenon (2) Also in pre-18 th century music, these concepts were almost completely absent, and composers (eg, Josquin) who plagiarized were often given the highest praises for their work. Examples in the 15 th century: The ‘ contrafacta ’ repertory ( one song to the tune of another; Latin, " counterfeits“) The ‘ si placet ’ repertory (added voices to existing songs) And it continued later: Handel clearly wrote much music (eg, Messiah ) Josquin (c. 1450-1521), portrait by through self-cannibalism of his earlier tunes. Cornelis Sparreboom after a 1611 J.S. Bach did the same (eg, B-minor Mass ) and woodcut (1993) shamelessly plagiarized Vivaldi, Pergolesi, etc.
On the prevalence of misconduct cases A survey in the BMJ found that of the 2,782 doctors and academics that responded, 13% had first-hand knowledge of misconduct. A meta-analysis of misconduct surveys found that 2% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once, and 14% knew of fabrication or falsification by colleagues. In a 2010 survey on the response of researchers to wrongdoing, 63% of the 2,193 respondents said that they had intervened but that most action was Forrest plot of admission rates of data fabrication, falsification and alteration in self reports. informal (discussing concerns with a supervisor), rather than lodging a formal Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and complaint. Falsify Research? PLOS ONE 4(5): e5738.
On publication and responsibilities for honesty The roots of scholarly scientific publishing [ie, registration (date stamping and provenance), certification (peer review), dissemination and archiving] can be traced to 1665, when Henry Oldenburg established the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ( Phil. Trans. ). The Phil. Trans. created a sense of competition among scientists to be the first to publish a new finding, an incentive that is continued in modern scientific journals, and endows the author with a measure of prestige. Journal articles supply information that helps scientists to develop new hypotheses, and they provide a foundation on which new discoveries are built. Because science is fundamentally a cumulative enterprise, where each new discovery plays the role of one more brick in an edifice, we have a moral obligation to disclose new discoveries that are trustworthy. Publications affect a author's job prospects and prospects of promotion, tenure, fruitful scientific collaborations, and financial profits.
“A lot of what is published is incorrect” Current scientific research is already facing an unprecedented challenge in the form of an ongoing reproducibility crisis (Nature 530(7588), 27 – 29, 2016). This is alarming due to the fact that reproducibility of published data remains one of the key requirements in advancing scientific research. In a recent survey, ~70% of respondents claimed failures to reproduce data reported by others (Nature 533(7604), 452 – 454, 2016). The corresponding replication failure rates in chemistry and biology were as high as 90 and 80%, respectively. “Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effect sizes, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (Richard Horton, Lancet 2015).
N.B. This is a plagiarized slide
and poli politicians It’s a great drug to kill this virus. Take it with your daily Clorox infusion.
What can we do to fix bad scientific practices? Educate personnel on good practice, the scientific method, the philosophy of science, and research ethics. Insist on preparing of protocols, and public a priori defending of ideas and strategies. Insist on replicability statements in project reports, dissertations, grant applications, and research manuscripts. Emphasize collaboration, not competition. Solicit and reward pre-publication peer review. Implement up to date recommendations, depending on the field of research, on increasing research value (statistics, data presentation).
How can we guard against fraud and protect ourselves? A recent high-profile case at the College of Pharmacy as well as the current COVID-19 related closure provided an opportunity for our lab to reflect on preventive mechanisms that can be implemented to promote research integrity. A key answer continues to lie in the basic principles of science education to our employees and students. It is a collective responsibility of the scientific community to ensure that trust remains the foundation of public support for biomedical research. doi:10.1126/science.aat7511
Recommend
More recommend
