RESUMO
Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.
Actualmente han proliferado una gran cantidad de revistas depredadoras, cuyo fin es obtener ganancias fraudulentas mediante la promesa de la publicación rápida de trabajos científicos, sin cumplir con los servicios de una revisión de calidad. Estas editoriales han logrado copiar los modelos de las revistas con acceso abierto, por lo que cada vez son más difíciles de identificar, aunado a que muchas de ellas se han abierto espacios en los índices más importantes de las revistas científicas, como Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, entre otros. Estas editoriales defraudan no solo a los autores de las investigaciones que intentan publicar sino también a los lectores y al público en general con publicaciones que no han sido debidamente revisadas y evaluadas por un sistema de pares o expertos académicos. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es dar a conocer algunas de las prácticas más comunes de las revistas depredadoras para que toda persona interesada en el proceso editorial, ya sea como autor, editor o lector, tenga los elementos para identificar estas revistas fraudulentas y esta mala práctica en el proceso editorial.
Assuntos
Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Publicação de Acesso Aberto/normas , Publicação de Acesso Aberto/ética , Políticas Editoriais , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Editoração/normasRESUMO
Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.
Assuntos
Autoria , Coerção , Humanos , Editoração/ética , Pesquisadores/ética , Má Conduta Científica/éticaRESUMO
O Comitê de Integridade na Pesquisa do Instituto Adolfo Lutz (CIPIAL), com o objetivo de promover a cultura da integridade científica como um dos valores fundamentais defendidos pela instituição nas suas atividades de pesquisa, considera relevante compartilhar com a comunidade científica a sua implantação, destacando o seu papel no gerenciamento deste tema na instituição. Após a publicação de seu regimento, de acordo com as suas competências primordiais, o CIPIAL elaborou e publicou o Código de Boas Práticas Científicas do IAL com o objetivo de definir as políticas de integridade para orientar os profissionais envolvidos com a pesquisa. (AU)
The Research Integrity Committee of the Adolfo Lutz Institute (CIPIAL), with the aim of promoting the culture of scientific integrity as one of the fundamental values defended by the institution in its research activities, considers it relevant to share its implementation with the scientific community, highlighting its role in managing this issue at the institution. Following the publication of its rules and regulations, in accordance with its core competencies, CIPIAL drew up and published the IAL Code of Good Scientific Practice with the aim of defining integrity policies to guide professionals involved in research. (AU)
Assuntos
Pesquisadores , Má Conduta Científica , Revisão de Integridade Científica , Ética em PesquisaRESUMO
Among the malpractices that undermine research integrity, plagiarism is a major threat given its frequency and evolving presentations. Plagiarism implies the intentional grabbing of texts, ideas, images, or data belonging to others and without crediting them. However, the different and even masked forms of plagiarism often difficult a clear identification. Currently, the many kinds of fraud and plagiarism account for most retractions in traditional and open access journals. Further, the rate of retracted articles is higher in the Latin American databases LILACS and Scielo than in PubMed and Web of Science. This difference has been related to the typical laxity of our culture and the lack of English writing skills of non-Anglophone researchers. These features explain the conflict experienced by Latin American students in USA where they face a stricter culture regarding academic and scientific plagiarism. In the internet era, the ease of accessing scientific literature has increased the temptation to plagiarize but this ethical breach has been countered by antiplagiarism software. Now, the so-called "paraphragiarism" prompted by paraphrasing tools exceeds the infamous "copy-paste". For instance, the innovative ChatGPT can be used for plagiarizing and paraphragiarizing. Moreover, its inclusion as coauthor in scientific papers has been banned by prestigious journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors because such chatbot cannot meet the required public responsibility criterium. To avoid plagiarism, it is enough to always give due credit in the proper way. Lastly, I question the ill-fated and now prevailing conjunction of blind faith in progress and zero skepticism that prevents us from foreseeing the negative consequences of technological advances.
De entre las malas prácticas que socavan la integridad científica destaca el plagio, tanto por su frecuencia como por sus cada vez más evolucionadas presentaciones. Plagiar implica apropiarse intencionalmente de textos, ideas, imágenes o datos ajenos sin dar el crédito debido. Sin embargo, las muchas y, a veces, sutiles maneras de plagiar dificultan identificar esta práctica deshonesta. Los fraudes y plagios explican la mayoría de los artículos retractados en revistas tradicionales y en las de acceso abierto. Además, las retractaciones por plagios en las bases de datos LILACS y SciELO exceden las reportadas en PubMed y Web of Science. Dicha diferencia se atribuye a la permisividad propia de nuestra cultura y a la dificultad para escribir en inglés que los académicos no angloparlantes enfrentamos. Tales peculiaridades explican el conflicto que experimentan los estudiantes latinoamericanos de posgrado en Estados Unidos, país cuya cultura es mucho más estricta en cuestión de plagios académicos y científicos. Al facilitar el acceso a la literatura científica, los avances digitales han propiciado los plagios, pero también el desarrollo de programas para detectar tales apropiaciones. Además del burdo "copiar y pegar", las herramientas para parafrasear han refinado y quizá aumentado el llamado "parafragio". Así, el novedoso ChatGPT puede usarse para plagiar y "parafragiar". Peor aún, la inclusión del ChatGPT como coautor de artículos científicos ha llevado a que el International Committee of Medical Journal Editors y editoriales de prestigio precisen que tal recurso no debe incluirse en la lista de autores. Para evitar el plagio, basta dar siempre el crédito a quien corresponda y apropiadamente. Por último, cuestiono la fe ciega en el progreso y el nulo escepticismo ahora imperantes que nos impiden prever las consecuencias negativas de los avances tecnológicos.
Assuntos
Plágio , Má Conduta Científica , Humanos , PesquisadoresRESUMO
In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.
Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Má Conduta Científica , Estados Unidos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Organização do FinanciamentoRESUMO
La presión que existe hoy por publicar ha llevado a que muchos investigadores cometan malas conductas científicas, siendo el fraude la más grave de todas. Este ocurre en forma de fabricación, falsificación, plagio, problemas de autoría, manipulación de imágenes y publicaciones redundantes. El fraude científico se define como una tergiversación deliberada por parte de alguien que conoce la verdad. En la historia de la humanidad se han conocido importantes casos de fraude científico, dentro de ellos se pueden destacar: el hombre de Piltdown, caso Shinichi Fujimura, el escándalo de las vacunas, caso Pearce, el caso Yoshitaka Fujii, entre otros. Con el objetivo de neutralizar el fraude, se han desarrollado diferentes estrategias dirigidas a detectarlo, dentro de ellas encontramos: evaluación mediante pares evaluadores, programas de Conducta de Investigación Responsable (RCR), regulaciones que la misma comunidad científica realiza, donde encontramos la fundación PubPeer y el blog For Better Science. Del mismo modo, se han impuesto diferentes medidas para contrarrestar el fraude, tales como: transparencia de las presiones y oportunidades, disponibilidad pública de los datos que sustentan la hipótesis y denuncia pública de los fraudes científicos. El impacto de un fraude trae consecuencias importantes para la ciencia, estudiar a partir de información falsa o errónea conlleva a un gran retroceso en los avances científicos del mundo actual. Es responsabilidad de cada uno ser consciente de lo que se escribe y lo que se lee, ya que como se sabe, esa es la única manera de combatirlo. Como investigadores somos responsables de actuar éticamente en nuestras investigaciones y tener conocimiento de las medidas que existen hoy para detectar y combatir el fraude científico.
The pressure to publish today has led many researchers to commit scientific misconduct, fraud being the most serious of all. This occurs in the form of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship problems, image manipulation, and redundant posting. Scientific fraud is defined as deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knows the truth. In the history of humanity, important cases of scientific fraud have been known, among them the following can be highlighted: the Piltdown man, the Shinichi Fujimura case, the vaccine scandal, the Pearce case, the Yoshitaka Fujii case, among others. In order to neutralize fraud, different strategies have been developed to detect it, among them we find: evaluation by peer reviewers, Responsible Research Conduct (RCR) programs, regulations that the scientific community itself carries out, where we find the PubPeer Foundation and the For Better Science blog. Similarly, different measures have been imposed to counteract fraud, such as: transparency of pressures and opportunities, public availability of the data that support the hypothesis, and public denunciation of scientific fraud. The impact of a fraud has important consequences for science, studying from false or wrong information leads to a great setback in scientific advances in the world today. It is the responsibility of each one to be aware of what is written and what is read, since as is known, that is the only way to combat it. As researchers we are responsible for acting ethically in our research and being aware of the measures that exist today to detect and combat scientific fraud.
Assuntos
Má Conduta Científica , Pesquisa Biomédica , Autoria , Plágio , FraudeRESUMO
A má conduta científica vem sendo observada ao longo da história da ciência, entretanto, nas últimas décadas teve um crescimento exponencial, e um exemplo disso foi a época da pandemia da COVID-19. Ficamos a refletir sobre o potencial impacto que uma evidência frágil pode gerar a partir de um convencimento de uma prática ou tomada de decisão profissional. Isso pode ocorrer devido a falhas no sistema educacional, na formação de pesquisadores e até mesmo a desvios morais e éticos.
Scientific misconduct has been observed throughout the history of science. However, it has grown exponentially in recent decades, an example of which was the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. We reflect on the potential impact of weak evidence from a convincing practice or professional decision-making. This situation can occur due to educational system failures, training of researchers, and even moral and ethical deviations.
Assuntos
Má Conduta Científica , Avaliação da Pesquisa em Saúde , Erro Científico ExperimentalRESUMO
The retraction of health sciences publications is a growing concern. To understand the patterns in a particular country-context and design specific measures to address the problem, it is important to describe and characterize retractions. We aimed to assess the evolution of health science retractions in Brazil and Portugal and to describe their features. We conducted a cross-sectional study including all health sciences retracted articles with at least one author affiliated to a Portuguese or Brazilian institution identified through Retraction Watch database. A total of 182 retracted articles were identified. The number of retractions increased over time, but the proportion related to the whole of publications remained stable. A total of 50.0% and 60.8% of the Portuguese and Brazilian retracted articles, respectively, were published in first and second quartile journals. Scientific misconduct accounted for 60.1% and 55.9% of retractions in Brazil and Portugal. In both countries, the most frequent cause of misconduct was plagiarism. The time from publication to retraction decreases as the journal quartile increases. The retraction of health sciences articles did not decrease over time in Brazil and Portugal. There is a need to develop strategies aimed at preventing, monitoring and managing scientific misconduct according to the country context.
Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Má Conduta Científica , Humanos , Brasil , Portugal , Estudos Transversais , PlágioRESUMO
Plagiarism allegations are not rare in the history of science, and credit for prior work was and continues to be a source of disputes, involving notions of priority of discovery and of plagiarism. However, consensus over what constitutes plagiarism among scientists from different fields cannot be taken for granted. We conducted a national survey exploring perceptions of plagiarism among PhD holders registered in the database of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. This survey was sent to 143,405 PhD holders across the fields, in the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts, with a response rate of about 20%. The results suggest that core principles about plagiarism are shared among this multidisciplinary community, corroborating Robert K. Merton's observations that concerns over plagiarism and priority disputes are not field specific. This study offers insight into the way plagiarism is perceived in this community and sheds light on the problem for international collaborative research networks. The data focus on a particular research system in Latin America, but, given the cultural similarities that bind most Latin American nations, these results may be relevant to other PhD populations in the region and should provide an opportunity for comparison with studies from other emerging, non-Anglophone regions.