How can fraud in scientific research be eliminated?

In the world of scientific research, there is a strong tendency to attach importance to stimulating research results and the number of papers published in academic journals, so there are many researchers who make fraud in the process of research and writing papers in search of results. That's right. Science journalist Dalmeet Singh Chawla summarizes the question, 'How can we deal with cheating in scientific research?'

It's Time to Get Serious About Research Fraud
https://undark.org/2020/07/23/cracking-down-on-research-fraud/

In 2016, Canadian endocrinologist Sophie Jamal accused of cheating in a study that ' nitroglycerin is useful for treating osteoporosis', suspended the government funding etc. received. Mr. Jamal was deprived of his doctor's license in 2018, but in 2020 he submitted evidence that cheating was a result of a long-term mental disorder, and as long as he continued to treat mental disorders, He was allowed to work as a doctor.

Although there are not many cases that resulted in a large scandal like Mr. Jamal's example, it seems that there are many researchers who continue to research even after committing fraud in scientific research. In a 2020 (PDF file) study of a survey of more than 1100 researchers belonging to eight European universities, many 'research misconducts' were not publicly reported, especially for young researchers. Researchers have found that they are less likely to accuse other researchers of fraud.

Part of the problem with injustice in scientific research is that it is not clear what 'what is 'injustice in scientific research'?' For example, the U.S. Research Justice Office (ORI) , which monitors fraud in scientific research, defines 'forgery, distortion, and plagiarism of research proposals, conduct, peer review, and results' as research fraud, but other Organizations and countries have adopted completely different definitions, or do not have a clear definition in the first place. In addition to fraud in the research process, some researchers argue that 'dare not to publicly report important information' is also fraudulent in research.

Chawla also notes that many common misconducts are classified as 'suspicious research activity (QRP)' rather than overt cheating. For QRP, ' P-value hacking ' where data is tampered with until statistical significance is obtained, ' cherry picking ' where data that suits oneself is selectively reported, and data obtained after conducting experiments Includes ' Har King ' that makes a hypothesis based on. In addition, the bias on the publisher side is that QRPs give priority to positive papers such as 'I was able to reproduce conventional research' rather than negative papers that could not reproduce conventional research. It is a kind of.

The findings , published in June 2020, revealed that gift authorship , which adds co-authors who are researchers who make little contribution to research, is the most common research fraud in the United States. In addition, it is widely practiced to intentionally exclude researchers who contributed to the research as co-authors.

Although the problems with QRP have been pointed out for many years, Chawla points out that many researchers, institutions, organizations, publishers, and funders are aware of QRP as a 'gray zone.' In the scientific community, where it is important to publish as many papers as possible and the achievements in outstanding academic journals are important for increasing opportunities for promotion and grants, many researchers have the motivation to carry out QRP and produce results. I can say.

Chawla said in an international community, including publishers of academic journals, universities, research institutes, and funders, to combat fraud that is widespread in the scientific community. I argue that it is necessary to clearly define the constituent element 'No?'. By deciding what is going to be a problem, it will be possible to determine the accusation of the problem and the punishment given to researchers for the first time. Investigators should punish researchers, taking into account the effects of fraud on human life, the amount of public money spent on fraudulent research, and the motives behind fraud, Chawla said. States.

In addition, young researchers are afraid of the consequences of accusing researchers who are higher than themselves and tend to refrain from accusing, so the university should protect whistleblowers, Chawla said. Pointed out. In addition, universities and research institutions fear that their reputation will be damaged, and even if they receive a report of fraud, they will squeeze or lightly punish it, and as a result, researchers who committed fraud will continue to conduct fraudulent research. May allow you to continue to publish. Therefore, it is preferable that the agency that monitors and pursues research fraud is a government agency that is independent of universities and research institutions and has sufficient sanctions.

In the UK, we plan to establish a 'research integrity committee' in the summer of 2020, and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) announced in July 2020 (PDF file) report , Outlined options for investigating research integrity across Europe. Chawla said these efforts are important in eliminating research fraud from the scientific community.