Abstract
Purpose
It is unclear if undesired practices such as scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in neuroradiology. Therefore, the objective was to explore the integrity of clinical neuroradiological research using a survey method.
Methods
Corresponding authors who published in one of four top clinical neuroradiology journals were invited to complete a survey about integrity in clinical neuroradiology research.
Results
A total of 232 corresponding authors participated in our survey. Confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in clinical neuroradiology (0–10 point scale) was rated as a median score of 8 (range 3–10). In linear regression analysis, respondents from Asia had significantly higher confidence (beta coefficient of 0.569, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.049–1.088, P = 0.032). Of the respondents 8 (3.4%) reported to have committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, whereas 66 respondents (28.4%) reported to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. A total of 192 respondents (82.8%) thought that a study with positive results is more likely to be accepted by a journal than a similar study with negative results and 96 respondents (41.4%) had an honorary author on any of their publications in the past 5 years.
Conclusion
Experts in the field have overall high confidence in published clinical neuroradiology research; however, scientific integrity concerns are not negligible, publication bias is a problem and honorary authorship is common. The findings from this survey may help to increase awareness and vigilance among anyone involved in clinical neuroradiological research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data, Materials and/or Code availability
Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.
References
Xie Y, Wang K, Kong Y. Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021;27:41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9.
Wolpert SM. Neuroradiology as a subspecialty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984;142:429–30. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.142.2.429.
American Society of Neuroradiology. https://www.asnr.org/. Accessed 26 Nov 2022.
European Society of Neuroradiology. https://www.esnr.org/. Accessed 26 Nov 2022.
Asian-Oceanian Society of Neuroradiology and Head & Neck Radiology. http://www.aosnhnr.org/. Accessed 26 Nov 2022.
Journal citation reports (InCites). https://jcr.clarivate.com/. Accessed 1 Oct 2022.
Rawat S, Meena S. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? J Res Med Sci. 2014;19:87–9.
Lu L, Phua QS, Bacchi S, Goh R, Gupta AK, Kovoor JG, Ovenden CD, To MS. Small study effects in diagnostic imaging accuracy: a meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2228776. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.28776.
Kressel HY, Dixon AK. Where is the honor in honorary authorship? Radiology. 2011;259:324–7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110422.
Kwee RM, Almaghrabi MT, Kwee TC. Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research. Eur J Radiol. 2022;156:110553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110553.
Kwee TC, Almaghrabi M, Kwee RM. Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2023; https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264679.
Kwee RM, Kwee TC. Retracted publications in medical imaging literature: an analysis using the retraction watch database. Acad Radiol. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.06.025.
Funding
No funds, grants, or other support was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors fulfil ICMJE criteria: all authors have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work and drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
R.M. Kwee, M.T. Almaghrabi and T.C. Kwee declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants or on human tissue were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board of University Medical Center Groningen and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Consent
The survey was conducted online using Qualtrics. All responses were anonymised. The participants were made aware that the survey was being conducted for research purposes.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Data, Material and/or Code Availability
Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kwee, R.M., Almaghrabi, M.T. & Kwee, T.C. Integrity of Clinical Neuroradiological Research. Clin Neuroradiol 34, 325–331 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01280-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-023-01280-4