Why is this important? (Important Because)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A description to provide more focus to the theme/resource (max. 200 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
[
Failing to report all aspects of research leads to publishing incomplete or inaccurate results. It wastes valuable resources such as peer-reviewers’ and editors’ time, research funds, and collaborators’ efforts. Being biased in reporting results distorts the integrity of science and if not discovered, might influence future studies.
Outcome reporting bias affects the entire research ecosystem. From research subjects and collaborators to research administrators, funders, and also other researchers that might rely on the results of the study. It also affects society’s trust in science. +
Unfortunately, current practices in science show that journals that are considered of high quality (those with high impact factors) predominately publish statistically significant results. Researchers want to publish in such journals because it's important for their academic prestige and job.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"' This creates pressure on researchers, and can lead to P-value hacking. P-value hacking leads to false positive results, which can get published, and have a negative impact on future research in the field, secondary research and systematic reviews and human knowledge in general.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000E-QINU`"' +
Publication bias is defined as a conscious or unconscious decision to publish or distribute a manuscript based on the study results . '"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Reviews of scientific literature point to the fact that papers with positive results are three times more likely to be published than the ones with negative results. Reasons for such practices are multiple. The most common one is that scientists simply do not submit studies with negative findings to journals. Unfortunately, a lot of negative findings are usually defined as those that do not reach the usual threshold of statistical significance of p<0.05. This issue was recently addressed in the American Statistical Association’s Statement on p value, which aims to steer future research away from p value as the most significant indicator. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"'Also, a part of responsibility lies with editors and scientometric criteria, which, by their nature, favor studies with positive results. Two dire consequences of publication bias are resource waste and negative impact on meta-analyses. The former is the result of scientists doing experiments which have already been conducted by others but never published (because they had no positive results), and the latter simply means that meta-analyses will be oversaturated with positive results and skew the conclusions . '"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"' +
Salami publication is a concept that is difficult to define, therefore making detection and prevention difficult, but it is generally considered to be a form of redundant publication and self-plagiarism characterized by the spreading of study results over more papers than necessary despite the same, or very similar, hypothesis, methodology, dataset or results. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000007-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' The negative consequences of salami publication are multiple, and can be divided into two groups. The first is of a scientometric nature – scientists with more papers are likely to get more citations and probably more funding. The second, more serious, consequence is that results will be over-represented in meta-analyses, which are considered to be the highest level of evidence for any question '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"' – salami publication skews the results of meta-analyses because the same data is unknowingly analyzed twice.
'''Examples'''
The most blunt example of salami publication is publishing the same paper twice, with slightly different conclusions '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'.This type of salami publication was much more likely to occur in the age before online databases – nowadays, salami publication is much more subtle. For example, studies which investigate levels of biomarkers in different phases of a disease end up being followed up by a different paper investigating diagnostic characteristics of those very same markers on the same datasets.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000B-QINU`"' +
Being selective in using previously published work results in biased and/or incomplete analyses and conclusions. This endangers the integrity of claims, and harms society’s trust in research because it creates unfounded authority. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' Selective citations affect authors of previously published work, whether they are cited or not. It also affects readers of research hoping that it is accurate and unbiased. Other parties that might be impacted by selective citations are researchers conducting meta-analyses that synthesize a body of published work, decision making agencies that rely on accurate research results, as well as regulatory/oversight bodies of the research landscape.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000006-QINU`"' +
Spin can distort the production of knowledge and mislead readers and misguide decision and policy makers. Being aware of spin is tremendously important for readers of scientific papers, for researchers, for editors, for information specialists (synthesizing knowledge), and for users of scientific evidence, such as policy makers. '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"' Distorted presentation and interpretation of results have been revealed in the cardiovascular literature.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000F-QINU`"' While professional disagreement drives scientific progress, spin hampers it, as it frequently becomes static and entrenched. Attention and awareness can be ways to reduce the problem. It is an interesting issue whether spin borders to misconduct, as it can involve misleading and manipulation although spin is not directly related to money or profit.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000010-QINU`"' +
Gaining consent from all authors before submitting a manuscript demonstrates honesty and respect for colleagues. A number of cases have drawn attention to this questionable research practice. For example, a co-author found out a conference paper was re-published in another journal by the first author, without getting consent from all authors.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"' Moreover, that same first author later translated the conference paper to their native language and published it in a journal written in that language, still listing all authors without consent. In this way, the co-author self-plagiarized without being aware of it. This case led to a request to the journal to retract the article.
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-00000009-QINU`"' +
Research collaborations can occur between different partners, such as different departments within the same institution, different institutions, teams from academia and industry and teams from different countries. At the outset of the partnership, there may be varying expectations of how the responsibilities and benefits of the research will be distributed. This is especially relevant in the case of academic-industrial partnerships. <sup>2</sup> Multicentre research based on collaborations between the Global North and South may also pose special challenges, because of the differences between the infrastructure, resources and negotiating power between the partners. <sup>3</sup> Not addressing the concerns of each partner could lead to misunderstandings and disagreements during later stages of the research.
Based on the principles of fairness and distributive justice, all collaborators should ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed proportionately. The benefits of the research may take various forms such access to a deliverable product, career advancement of researchers, authorships and acknowledgements, local capacity building and others. These should be anticipated beforehand, and a consensus reached on how each partner can share in the outcomes. Similarly, the burdens and risks involved, such as personal risks to participants and field researchers, institutional investments in research and risks associated with providing and exporting data should be distributed as fairly as possible, in order to avoid the exploitation of one or more partners. Not doing so, or deviating from initial agreements on benefit sharing, constitutes a questionable research practice. +
Peer reviewing is a pillar of the scientific process, improving the quality of published research. Within the article submission process, many journals allow authors to suggest peer reviewers. By providing fake email addresses generated by the author themselves, authors can manipulate the peer-review process. Several forms of ‘fake reviewing’ can be distinguished:
#Authors can refer to existing scientists, but provide fake email addresses;#Authors can refer to ficticious reviewers, supplemented with an email address;#Third parties offering services can also provide fake reviews. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000013-QINU`"'
If Journal editors are unable to detect the fake reviewers, articles might be published without the quality control of sufficient genuine peer review. All major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, Wiley, and Informa have retracted papers because of fake reviews. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000014-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000015-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000016-QINU`"' As of 2020 over 600 articles have been retracted because of fake reviewing according to the Retraction Watch Database.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000017-QINU`"' COPE estimates that 10% of retractions are due to fake reviewing. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000018-QINU`"'
Below a list of ‘red flags’ in peer review can be found, which should raise suspicions about authors aiming to fake the review process.
Red flags in peer-review'"`UNIQ--ref-00000019-QINU`"':
<br />
*“The author asks to exclude some reviewers, then provides a list of almost every scientist in the field.
*The author recommends reviewers who are strangely difficult to find online.
*The author provides Gmail, Yahoo or other free e-mail addresses to contact suggested reviewers, rather than e-mail addresses from an academic institution.
*Within hours of being requested, the reviews come back. They are glowing.
*Even reviewer number three likes the paper.”
<br />
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001A-QINU`"' +
Expectations, in relation to behavior, attitude and competencies, are often influenced by traditional gender roles and stereotypes. These expectations influence how people approach you. For example, the competence people expect you to have or not to have, influences whether you are encouraged to pursue a career in science or not, whether they invite you for a job interview or not, and whether they develop and promote your career – or not.
When selecting candidates for assistant professorships, committee members tend to look for someone “who has the potential to survive in the competitive academic world by being productive, confident, committed to the profession, and internationally mobile.”'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Men are more often perceived by others to possess these characteristics than women. Gender bias can manifest itself in a number of situations: in working conditions (such as job security), in recruitment and career advancement, and when awarding grants.
For example, researchers from the University of California studied video recordings of job interviews across five engineering departments of research universities.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"' They found that female candidates received more questions and were interrupted more often. Women had less time to deliver their message than men. This study illustrates the phenomenon of “stricter standards” of competence that are demanded of women compared to men when applying for what is perceived to be a masculine-type job.
It seems that the people who reach top positions in the current system are mainly ‘alpha males’. This means that there is also a group of men that is underrepresented in these positions. Keep in mind: even if all people in top positions are men, not all men are in top positions. Moreover, we speak of ‘men’ and ‘women’ here. This excludes yet another group of people who do not identify as either one of them.
Gender bias goes against the principles of research integrity, and is detrimental to good science.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000004-QINU`"'
Authorship has important academic implications and authors are accountable for published research '"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"'. Research showed that naming as authors those who have not contributed significantly to the study is considered one of the most prevalent types of authorship frauds '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"'. Honorary authorship is often related to established or famous senior researchers who are named authors just because they hold senior positions and can help junior or less established researchers obtain funding or enhance chances for publications, awards, and recognition in the research community. It is considered that honorary authorship is often given with the recipient’s knowledge or even asked or demanded by recipients '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'. This is especially an issue for junior researchers who may feel pressured to assign authorship to senior researchers or feel they own authorship in return for their advice or help '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000D-QINU`"'. Similarly, the gift authorship usually includes researchers adding one another as co-authors regardless of contributions to the study to enhance their publication profile and spread collaborative networks. In many cases, this type of authorship fraud leads to a false representation of research skills and expertise, which gives these researchers an unfair advantage in competing for career opportunities and awards '"`UNIQ--ref-0000000E-QINU`"'. +
Peer review comments offer a space for growth, improvement of articles and increase the quality of reporting.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000005-QINU`"' Constrictive criticism is one of the most valuable qualities of a good review. However, when they are hostile they don’t provide adequate feedback. This way, a researcher misses out on the opportunity to improve work.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000006-QINU`"' Moreover, this type of review often has a negative impact on self-esteem, especially for young and inexperienced researchers.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000007-QINU`"' +
Getting authorship credit in academia is important because it’s one of the main ways how other researchers and institutions evaluate your work. Among other criteria, institutions seek employees based on the number of articles published, and authorship is a criterion for getting promotion or tenure. In the end, authors are researchers who guarantee for the data in the article, and can be held responsible for their work. In medical sciences, practice of ghost-writing can happen during the clinical trials, where experts from drug companies (writers or statisticians) contribute to the research or manuscript writing, but are not listed as authors because of their conflict of interest. Sometimes, senior researchers, supervisors and laboratory leaders, who do not fulfil the authorship criteria end up listed as authors. That is called guest or gift authorship and is usually done to increase the chance of manuscript publication. +
When someone does not fit into one the [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html four criteria] for authors identified by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), they should not be listed as authors, but acknowledged as contributors. With regard to that, they should meet one of the following criteria:
-provide funding
-supervise a research group or provide general administrative support
-assist authors in writing, technical and language editing, and proofreading.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000008-QINU`"'
Contributors may be acknowledged individually or as a group, and their contributions should be specified (reviewing the manuscript, collecting data, participation in writing or technical editing of the manuscript, etc.).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000009-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000000A-QINU`"' Authors must obtain permission from contributors to acknowledge them in their papers.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000000B-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000000C-QINU`"' +
Much of scientific work happens through collaboration. But collaboration can also lead to conflict when the roles of different collaborators are unclear or when expectations are not met. Laying clear ground rules and having an open discussion about expectations helps the collaboration run smoothly. '"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"'
Collaboration promotes ''the building of effective communication and partnerships, and also provides equal opportunity among team members.'' It honors and respects each member's individual and organizational style. Collaboration also promotes ethical behavior by maintaining '''honesty, integrity, equity, transparency and confidentiality.''' '"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--references-00000005-QINU`"' +
Self-plagiarism is an issue because it means already published data is presented as new, which can distort meta-analyses and impact review articles. Not only that, duplicate publishing can have serious effects on algorithms and guidelines in healthcare. Self-plagiarism gives false results in citation index tools. It’s unfair and at its core, it’s basically double dipping - for one piece of work you get multiple publications. Another problem is the copyright issue. When you publish your work, you usually sign a contract with the journal, by which you transfer copyright rights to the publisher. That way, when you copy your own work, you are stealing not only from yourself, but from the publisher as well, and actually breaking the law. +
In practice, although each member is wholly responsible for the integrity of their contribution, it could be difficult for an individual or a team to ensure the integrity of the whole project. This is especially true in collaborative projects involving several disciplines, institutions or cross-border initiatives. In the case of authorship, for instance, it can be ethically complex to attribute accountability in large, multidisciplinary projects. <sup>2</sup> In such situations, transparency as to the role of each contributing member or team becomes crucial. Practices such as assigning Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) are a way of recognizing and clarifying the roles of contributors. <sup>3</sup> +
Research aims for ‘truth’. We trust researchers to strive for that. Errors in research – whether intentional or not – hamper truth finding. When errors (honest mistakes or deliberate violations) are dealt with, we come closer to finding scientific ‘truth’, such as a theory that explains what we see around us or the best treatment for a particular condition. Addressing errors restores trust in research. When someone knows a mistake is made and does not act upon that, truth is compromised and trust in research decreases. +
Reviewing is part of the scientific process of ensuring trustworthiness and accountability. Reviewers are in a position to exert power over manuscripts, grant proposals or promotions of others. With an unfavourable review, a manuscript might not be published, a grant not funded, or a promotion not awarded. In relation to grant applications, there are instances where reviewers have provided a negative review to a proposal, then subsequently submitted a similar proposal (for a case study from The Office of Research Integrity , see [https://ori.hhs.gov/case-three-getting-scooped-reviewer here]). Moreover, within peer review there are cases of bullying and using superiority to add, for example, the articles of the reviewers (e.g. see [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00335-7 here]). Reviewers might also be motivated to provide an unfavourable review because they are working on the same topic and want to publish their results first. When it comes to promotion of colleagues, a reviewer might abuse their position by unfairly reviewing one candidate, because they have a preference for another candidate. +
Convenience sampling is widely used because it is quick, inexpensive, and practical, especially in early‑stage or resource‑limited studies. However, its ethical implications are often underexamined. Evidence shows that convenience samples frequently fail to represent target populations, undermining the external validity of research findings and limiting their generalizability (2). This poses a significant ethical issue because participants may shoulder burdens without the guarantee that the generated knowledge will meaningfully benefit the intended population.
Ethical frameworks emphasize fair subject selection, insisting that scientific objectives, rather than convenience, should determine who is included in research . Yet convenience sampling often disproportionately recruits easily reachable groups such as students, patient populations already visiting clinics, or individuals with higher socioeconomic resources, creating inequities in both risks and benefits. Studies have documented that convenience samples differ systematically from broader populations in education, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (3), meaning that marginalized groups may be under‑ or over‑represented in ways that distort findings.
Because convenience sampling impacts validity, fairness, and the equitable distribution of research burdens, understanding its ethical dimensions is crucial for responsible scientific practice.
This topic is especially relevant for early‑career researchers, master’s and PhD students, supervisors, ethics committee members, and practitioners conducting human‑subject research across social sciences, health sciences, and psychology. +
