Abstract
Research misconduct (RM) is an alarming concern worldwide, and especially in Italy, where there is no formal training of young researchers in responsible research practices. The main aim of this study was to map the perceptions and attitudes about RM in a sample of young researchers attending a one-week intensive course on methodology, ethics and integrity in biomedical research, held at the University of Insubria (Italy). To this end, we administered the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire (SMQ-R) to all attendees at the beginning of the course. Thereafter, SMQ-R was re-administered at the end, to assess the impact of the course on the responsiveness of study participants, which is intended as the frequency of responses other than “don’t know”. Results show that respondents rate as high their own understanding about rules and procedures related to scientific misconduct (49.2% of respondents), as well as the effectiveness of their institution’s measures for reducing it (40%). Most of them (44.6%) perceive as low the chances of getting caught for RM. Some respondents believe that cases of misconduct occur in their workplace (20%–46.2%) and that the integrity of a research is not solely the responsibility of the principal investigator (73.8%). Among the main factors contributing to research misconduct, the need for publications, unclear definition of what constitutes misconduct and pressure for external funding do stand out. Respondents are concerned about the amount of misconduct and express a pressing need for training on research ethics. Remarkably, the responsiveness of participants tends to increase with course attendance. This finding may be useful to support education programmes devoted to research methodology, ethics and integrity among young researchers.
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.References
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
Arrowsmith, J. (2011). Phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10(5), 328–329. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439.
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a.
Bosch, X. (2011). Europe must address research misconduct. Nature, 480(7376), 181–181. https://doi.org/10.1038/480181c.
Boulbes, D. R., Costello, T., Baggerly, K., Fan, F., Wang, R., Bhattacharya, R., Ye, X., & Ellis, L. M. (2018). A survey on data reproducibility and the effect of publication process on the ethical reporting of laboratory research. Clinical Cancer Research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 24(14), 3447–3455. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0227.
Broome, M. E., Pryor, E., Habermann, B., Pulley, L., & Kincaid, H. (2005). The scientific misconduct questionnaire—Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and psychometric testing. Accountability in Research, 12(4), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620500440253.
Carpenter, S. (2012). Scientific misconduct. Government sanctions Harvard psychologist. Science (New York, N.Y.), 337(6100), 1283. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.337.6100.1283.
Cosentino, M., & Picozzi, M. (2013). Transparency for each research article. Institutions must also be accountable for research integrity. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 347, f5477. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5477.
Fanelli D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738.
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556.
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015). The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biology, 13(6), e1002165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165.
Gammon, E., & Franzini, L. (2013). Research misconduct oversight: Defining case costs. Journal of Health Care Finance, 40(2), 75–99. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24551963. Accessed 26 April 2019.
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. Lancet (London, England), 381(9872), 1097–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X.
Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 342, c7452. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7452.
Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2018). Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21(3), 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9817-7.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology, 19(5), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818131e7.
Keller, F., Dhaini, S., Briel, M., Henrichs, S., Höchsmann, C., Kalbermatten, D., Künzli, N., Mollet, A., Puelacher, C., Schmidt-Trucksäss, A., von Niederhäusern, B., & de Geest, S. (2018). How to conceptualize and implement a PhD program in health sciences-the Basel approach. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 5, 2382120518771364. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120518771364.
Kumar, M. N. (2008). A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9068-6.
Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the web of science. Scientific Reports, 3(1), 3146. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03146.
Marini, G. (2017). New promotion patterns in Italian universities: Less seniority and more productivity? Data from ASN. Higher Education, 73(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0008-x.
Marino, I. R., & Cirillo, C. (2014). The state of research in Europe and in Italy: The risks of short-sighted decisions. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 59(9), 2036–2039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3303-3.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.
Mastroianni, A. C. (2008). Sustaining public trust: Falling short in the protection of human research participants. Hastings Center Report, 38(3), 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1353/hcr.0.0012.
Nwo.nl. (n.d.). Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://www.nwo.nl/en/policies/scientific+integrity+policy/netherlands+code+of+conduct+for+research+integrity. Accessed 28 July 2019.
Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339.x.
Okonta, P. I., & Rossouw, T. (2014). Misconduct in research: A descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-25.
ORI - The Office of Research Integrity. (2019). Case Summaries. https://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary. Accessed 25 April 2019.
Pain, E. (2008). Research integrity: Making the right choices. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a0800001.
Parlangeli, O., Guidi, S., Marchigiani, E., Bracci, M., & Liston, P. M. (2019). Perceptions of work-related stress and ethical misconduct amongst non-tenured researchers in Italy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00091-6.
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10(9), 712–712. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439-c1.
Pryor, E. R., Habermann, B., & Pryor, E. R. (2007). Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: A national survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.016394.
Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6.
Pupovac, V., Prijić-Samaržija, S., & Petrovečki, M. (2017). Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: A survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9767-0.
Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2017). Reproducibility and research integrity. Accountability in Research, 24(2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1257387.
Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891943.
Retraction Watch. (2018). Are you liable for misconduct by scientific collaborators? What a recent court decision could mean for scientists – Retraction Watch. 2018. http://retractionwatch.com/2018/08/13/are-you-liable-for-misconduct-by-scientific-collaborators-what-a-recent-court-decision-means-for-scientists/. Accessed 28 July 2019.
Retraction watch. (2019). http://retractionwatch.com/. Accessed 26 May 2019.
Saunders, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023721.
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Malighetti, P. (2019). Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions. Research Policy, 48(2), 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2017.12.004.
Service, R. F. (2003). Scientific misconduct. More of bell labs physicist’s papers retracted. Science (New York, N.Y.), 299(5603), 31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5603.31b.
Smith, R. (2000). What is research misconduct? In C. White (Ed.), The COPE Report 2000: Annual Report of the Committee on Publication Ethics. (BMJ Books., p. 7). London: BMJ Publishing Group.
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268.
Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife, 3, e02956. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956.
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22636.
Acknowledgements
The Second Insubria International School on Methodology, Ethics and Integrity in Biomedical Research was supported by grants from the IISS - Insubria International Summer School program and from the School of Doctoral Programs, University of Insubria. The patronages of ENAI - European Network on Academic Integrity (http://www.academicintegrity.eu), ADI - Associazione dottorandi e dottori di ricerca italiani (https://dottorato.it/), SISM - Segretariato Italiano Studenti Medicina (http://www.nazionale.sism.org/) and Nograzie (http://www.nograzie.eu/) are gratefully acknowledged.
At the time of the study, AF and AMT were PhD students enrolled in the PhD program in Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Medical Humanities at the University of Insubria, developing research programs on the immune effects of drugs and their relevance for the development of new immunomodulating therapeutics, ES was post-doc researcher at the Center for Research in Medical Pharmacology, University of Insubria, contributing to a research program on peripheral immunity in Parkinson’s disease, and NC was an undergraduate student attending the fifth year of the MD course at the University of Milan. MC and FM are tenured professors of Pharmacology in the School of Medicine of the University of Insubria and members of the ENAI - European Network on Research Integrity (https://www.academicintegrity.eu/).
The authors wish to express their gratefulness to Mrs. Paola Gervasini (Centre for Research in Medical Pharmacology, University of Insubria) and to the team of students that she headed (Celestin Etaba and Lisa Fransato; Degree Course in Economics and Management, University of Insubria) for their valuable collaboration in the administrative management and in the organisation of the School.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Study conception and design: F.M. and M.C. Acquisition and management of data: N.C. Analysis: A.M.T., N.C., A.F. and E.S. Interpretation: F.M., M.C., A.M.T., N.C., A.F. and E.S. Drafting: A.M.T., A.F., N.C., E.S. F.M. and M.C. Revision: all the authors contributed to the revision. Tables: N.C., A.M.T., A.F., E.S., M.C. and F.M. Figures: A.F., E.S. and M.C. Bibliography: A.F., A.M.T. and N.C.
All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and all authors approved the final version to be published. All authors agree 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 and finally declare to have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(PDF 358 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mabou Tagne, A., Cassina, N., Furgiuele, A. et al. Perceptions and Attitudes about Research Integrity and Misconduct: a Survey among Young Biomedical Researchers in Italy. J Acad Ethics 18, 193–205 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09359-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09359-0