Negative results may poorly represent research skills, which, in turn, could affect opportunities and reduce chances of recognition or grant awards. Therefore, instead of publishing all negative results, some scientists add positive results to the negative results when submitting the manuscript. —Do-Yeon Cho, MD
Explore This Issue
June 2022
Multiple articles have been corrected or withdrawn after the publication detected errors or frauds in PubPeer, a scientific forum or journal club created in 2012 in which scientific studies are discussed after publication (J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. doi:10.1002/asi.24568). According to a 2015 VOX article, PubPeer has helped uncover science fraud and created a successful peer review model that could replace the hallowed, yet flawed, traditional process. One recent article from Scientometrics commented that postpublication peer review venues are a mechanism for correcting science (Scientometrics, 2020;124:1225-1239). To illustrate this article’s point, when I type the word “sinusitis” in the PubPeer search engine, 32 articles pop up, starting with a paper published in January 2021. Three articles were the subject of an erratum (a short note in which authors or editors correct errors in the article), and three were the subject of retraction.
Further analyzing the PubPeer platform in a recently published article (Learn Publ. 2021;34:164-174) revealed that the journals that produce most editorial notices came mainly from biochemistry and medicine (more precisely, oncology). In addition, some of the cancer journals appeared to be the venues with the highest proportion of errata and high proportions of retractions compared to other research areas.
Breaking Down Possible Causes
All of this information adds up to one crucial question—why? It’s discouraging that I have to change the contrast and rotate figures to detect fraud in 2022.
The authors of “Fostering Integrity in Research,” a book published by the Committee on Responsible Science at National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies Press, April 11, 2017), contend that understanding why is crucial because this knowledge could inform the responses of the research enterprise and its stakeholders. They explore two different answers. First, suppose this type of misconduct is happening to specific people engaged in self-interested deception and shortcuts. The response might be limited to increased vigilance in detecting these “bad apples” and ending their research careers (the bad apple theory). Second, they posit that if other factors contribute to research misconduct and detrimental research practices (e.g., career and funding pressures, commercial conflicts of interest, institutional environments for research integrity, or incentive structures significantly shaped by funding availabilities), then other responses are required.