Research integrity is the foundation and lifeline of the knowledge system，Since the birth of modern science，The issues of scientific value and scientific research integrity have always attracted much attention。As competition intensifies in the field of scientific research，The pressure to publish has become a major challenge in the careers of most researchers。This pressure has given rise to some scientific misconduct，eroding the purity of science and the foundation of trust in academia。The impact of pressure surrounding scientific research on scientific misconduct、Reflections on retraction standards and processes、Contradictions and difficulties faced when dealing with questionable papers、Responsibility subjects for safeguarding scientific values ​​and other issues，Our reporter combed relevant literature，And interviewed Hugo Horta, associate professor at the School of Education, University of Hong Kong、Bibliometrics of Université Nationale des Beaux-Arts、Frédérique Bordignon, head of international rankings and research integrity, and Steven L., distinguished professor at Duke University School of Law, USA. Schwarcz）。

　　Bet365 lotto review

Bordignon told this reporter，Under pressure to publish papers，Some researchers may behave irresponsibly，This is not conducive to the progress of science。High prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices。Back in 2009，Results of a study show，5% of researchers admitted they had made it up at least once、Experience of forging or modifying data。2022，A survey of researchers in various disciplines in the Netherlands shows that，Many people have unknowingly committed scientific misconduct or participated in questionable research practices，For example，Insufficient records of the research process，Or flaws and limitations of the study that are not disclosed in publications。Analysis also found，Comparison with earlier surveys，Incidence of misconduct increases further。

High incidence of research misconduct and questionable research practices also reflected in published journal articles。In a 2020 study, Andrew Grey, associate professor at the Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, New Zealand, and Alison Avenell, professor at the Department of Health Services Research, University of Aberdeen, UK, et al. Discover，Illegal use of authorship、Duplicate post、Issues such as data errors damage the credibility of publications in the biomedical field，But journals have been slow to respond to these issues、opaque、Disadvantages such as inconsistency。Discovered in a 2022 study by Jennifer Byrne, a professor at the School of Medicine and Health at the University of Sydney, Australia，712 papers in 78 journals with errors。This problem is very serious，A certain proportion of papers in the medical field contain false data，However, these papers still received more citations，Even used bet365 Play online games in clinical human trials，If this is not rectified and managed，There will be greater hidden dangers。

One of the responsibilities of a journal is to mark in a timely manner、Correction or retraction of questionable research paper，Journal editors and publishers generally follow the guidelines provided by the International Committee on Publication Ethics when dealing with integrity issues。Although the Commission is not a regulatory body，But it has high influence among journals and publishers。It provides a range of guidance on publishing，Includes how to conduct peer review、How to deal with the problem of data fraud and how to retract a paper in a proper way。However，Many scholars believe that，This guide is not fully functional。Gray, Evanel and others recently published a comment article on the official website of Nature magazine，Some journals and publishers claim to follow the guidance of the International Committee on Publication Ethics，However, they only pay lip service to publishing integrity，But avoided discovery、The hard work of assessing and solving problems。

Horta mentioned in the interview，Research results must be evaluated by others before publication，This assessment should be fair and impartial、Based on professional knowledge，Be able to verify or disprove a research work，And bring certain value to research work。Because of this，The peer review system only exists，It is both a scientific research screening mechanism，Also has developmental functions。However，Today the value of the peer review system in academic publishing is being questioned，The global trend of “publish or be out” has led to a large number of papers flowing into international journals，Puts greater pressure on editors and reviewers。At the same time, the review period continues to be extended，The quality of review has declined，The problem of bias in peer review is becoming increasingly evident。Horta thinks，Compared to motivating factors for paper publication，Far fewer incentives for peer review。Also worrying，Some young scholars sometimes choose worthless predatory journals，Sometimes it’s because they don’t know enough about international journals and international publishing，Sometimes it is because they are eager to publish in international journals，Do whatever it takes。Predatory journals take advantage of some researchers’ insufficient knowledge reserves and eagerness to make profits，Not beneficial to promoting scientific development and knowledge production，It is also an issue that needs attention at present。

　　Improve retraction standards and procedures

Actually，To maintain the integrity and reliability of scientific research，Many journals and publishers are already working to identify and clean up questionable research，The number of paper retractions is growing rapidly。According to statistics，More than 10,000 papers will be retracted in 2023。However，Scholars conducted research on retraction processing and found that，There are still many aspects that can be improved in the retraction standards and processes。

Judging from the retraction statement，The content often lacks transparency bet365 Play online games and detail。Research by Misha Angrist, a senior fellow at Duke University’s Science and Society Initiative and others，In recent years，The wording of the retraction statement is indeed clearer and more accessible in some cases，However, these progress are very limited。Angrist et al. studied two publishers, Springer and Wiley 2010、768 retractions issued in 2015 and 2020。Researchers create a rating system，Rate the quality of each retraction statement，Range is 0-2 points。The scoring criteria include whether the retraction statement is freely available，Is there a valid link between the paper and the retraction statement, etc.。The researchers also looked at whether the retraction statement contained a range of key information，Detailed reasons for retraction、Results of investigation into potential misconduct、Indicate which part of the paper lacks validity and who initiated the retraction。

Analysis and discovery，From 2010 to 2020，The quality of Springer’s retraction statement has improved，The quality of Wiley’s retraction statement has not improved significantly over time，The scores in some aspects in 2020 are lower than those in 2010。Study calls for publishers to agree on standards for issuing retractions，But the formulation is applicable to different disciplines as much as possible、Standards for different types of journals and papers are no easy task。Some journal publishers have already made their own attempts in this regard，For example，Chris Graf, Director of Research Integrity at Springer Nature Publishing，In the past few years，They work to ensure that retraction statements are structured coherently，Making retraction statement standards “transparent、Consistent，It’s feasible”，And broader than the standards set by the International Committee on Publication Ethics。

In the opinion of Gray and others，The investigation process and results of retractions should be more transparent and detailed。Although current guidelines require journals to publish an “Expression of Concern” flag to indicate problems in a paper、Doubts or disputes，Request that the decision to withdraw the manuscript should state the root cause，But the requirements for the level of detail are not clear。They think，Nature and scope of integrity-related issues、Author’s response、The time frame for evaluations and the decision-making process should be made more public、Transparent。

Herbert Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, once published an editorial to reflect on the paper retraction process。He said，Most journals follow the guidelines of the International Committee on Publication Ethics，When potentially problematic content is discovered，The journal will contact the author first，The author will deny the problem most of the time or insist that it can be solved with tweaks。For journals，Such answers are usually unsatisfactory，Therefore，Before deciding to withdraw the manuscript，The journal should contact the author’s institution。As per guideline requirements，Journals should contact the institution every 3-6 months for a response，But this wait may last a year or even longer。The journal is bet365 best casino games not an investigative agency，For journals，Retraction is easier to operate，This could have a significant impact on an academic’s career，However, the consequences of errors in the paper cannot be underestimated。Thorpe tried to find a better solution in this dilemma，He proposed，The investigation of scientific research integrity issues should be divided into two stages。The first stage aims to assess the validity of the paper without assigning blame，If the paper is invalid，Retraction decisions will be made faster；The second phase involves agencies conducting complex investigations over a longer period of time，Determine whether there is research misconduct。It would be useful to split the investigation into research misconduct into two，Because whether the data in the paper is reliable、Who is responsible for generating this data，These are two independent questions。

On this issue，The views of Gray and Evanel are similar to this，They agree that priority should be given to the reliability of the research itself rather than the conduct of the author。For other researchers and the public，The most important question is whether a study is reliable，Not why it is unreliable。If journals and publishers are primarily concerned with investigating author misconduct，It may cause long delays or hinder the evaluation of the reliability of the paper。

　　Optimizing the scientific research integrity assessment plan

In addition to thoughts on retraction，Gray, Evanel and others also made suggestions from other angles，Making the process of checking the integrity of publications more efficient。They think，Stipulated time limits for each task should be set，Current guidance from the International Committee on Publication Ethics does not specify how soon a journal should issue a “concern” designation or complete a research integrity assessment。The guidance also recommends that journals contact authors for feedback，But did not specify the time period for the editor to wait for the author's response，And what kind of author response is adequate and appropriate。Although when the situation is more complicated，Related investigations do take a long time，But Gray and others believe，There are loopholes for journal publishers to exploit under the current system。Therefore，Guidelines should improve time limit requirements，For example，Require journals to publish notification immediately upon initiation of an investigation，These notifications should be visible on the journal’s official website and literature information database。If the investigation results show that no integrity problems are found，You can update the notification to make it public。Gray et al.，In practice，It is more reasonable to set the completion period of the integrity assessment to 6 months。To help journals improve the response rate of authors or affiliated institutions，They also suggested，The author can be required to agree to cooperate in completing the integrity assessment within the specified time when submitting the paper，If the journal does not receive a reasonable response within the specified time，bet365 Play online games The manuscript will be withdrawn by default。

The International Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidance focuses on the process that journals and publishers need to follow when communicating with interested parties，Therefore，It is difficult to provide comprehensive guidance on assessing the integrity of a publication。In response to this difficulty，Proposed by Gray et al.，It is difficult to provide comprehensive guidance on assessing the integrity of a publication，Guide journals to systematically monitor the integrity of publications at all stages of the publishing process、Evaluation supported by methodology。Currently，There is a burgeoning discussion of methods for assessing integrity during peer review and post-publication，Recommended by Gray et al.，Tools developed in the study could be incorporated into the guidelines。In addition，You can also create an independent、Assessment team with relevant expertise，Correspondence to submission、Integrity control throughout the entire process from review to publication。If the "concern" about a certain paper is confirmed to be genuine，The integrity of other relevant publications should also be tested。

Opponents think，If potential research integrity issues are announced as soon as possible，Even if the investigation finally eliminates doubts，It may also have a negative impact on the reputation of scholars。To this，Gray et al.，The interests of readers and other researchers should be given priority，Because they may be working on the basis of existing literature。and，If neutral、Respectful language informs credit risk，Avoid the flippant use of accusatory language such as “misconduct” and “accusations”，It may not damage the scholar’s ​​reputation。

　　Maintaining scientific value requires cooperation from all parties

Optimizing solutions to research integrity issues requires the active participation of more than just journals and publishers，More stakeholders need to join in。Horta said in the interview，Academia needs to take the lead in taking responsibility。This is because，Academic culture and academic system should have the characteristics of self-regulation，Most evaluation work is also based on the rules of academia。The government and universities also need to play a role，Because they contribute to the trend of publishing in international journals。Research funding agencies when evaluating research proposals，We often expect research results to be published in international journals，Universities will also emphasize this point in recruitment and promotion，Global university rankings further promote the emphasis on publishing papers in international journals。In the increasingly fierce competition，Some researchers may be lax in their commitment to research integrity。If science loses its integrity，It loses its value，Also lost credibility。

Horta thinks，Current incentives place publishing papers at a very high level，All parties should reconsider this tendency。Focusing too much on certain statistics may lead to neglect of other important issues，Such as the value of this research to scientific bet365 live casino games development、Possible impacts，And other forms of output related to society such as scientific communication results。He concluded，The scientific research evaluation system should be transformed into a more balanced direction，Balancing statistics with broader values。

To this，Baudignon emphasizes，All participants in the academic publishing process play an important role。The working environment of researchers should be improved，Ensure they can conduct reliable research under the most suitable conditions；Researchers themselves have the responsibility to ensure the reliability of their results，And respect peers who will read and reuse their publications、Funders and the public who may benefit；Publishers also have a responsibility to do everything possible to combat research misconduct，Timely discovery、Mark and correct errors。She added，Meta-research should adopt a multidisciplinary approach，Conduct an in-depth investigation into the social environment of scientific research activities，And identify factors that encourage misconduct or lead to adverse consequences。Meanwhile，It is also important to develop computational tools for detecting problematic research results。She told reporters，The academic community has put forward some initiatives to address these challenges，For example，The "Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment" (CoARA) was officially established in 2022 and issued "The Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment"，More than 350 organizations from more than 40 countries signed the agreement，Recognizing the diversity of scientific work，And focus on the quality rather than the quantity of research results。Bordignon also found in recent research，Modify resume format、Writing a resume in a narrative manner helps the researcher present a broader perspective、More comprehensive results，Not limited to showing which papers were published in which journals。

Some international journals are also trying to put new ideas into practice。Horta told this reporter，To improve the transparency of peer review，Some journals decide to publicly publish reviewers’ comments；To reduce bias in peer review，More and more international journals are beginning to adopt the double-blind review system；Some journals require authors to provide data in order to replicate findings；There are also some journals that try to provide incentives for reviewers to improve review quality。However，These measures are not entirely effective，For example，Providing material incentives to reviewers has had mixed results，These measures in most cases promote an increase in the number of reviews，The quality of review may not necessarily improve。

Schwartz introduced the practice in the field of American law，He observed，A considerable number of law journals in the United States are edited and managed by students，This tradition dates back more than a century。He thinks，This is a practice that is not perfect but can reduce the burden of peer review。Law students have the opportunity to participate in related work through academic performance and writing competition selection，bet365 live casino games Students take their responsibilities very seriously。

The main advantage of having students select and edit manuscripts is that it relieves teachers of the pressure of peer review，The disadvantage is that students have to screen out papers published in law journals，When encountering a manuscript with complex content，They may have difficulty judging and need to seek help from teachers，Although this is less common。Schwartz is not too worried about the integrity of this mechanism，But he said，Whether the paper can be published，This may not always match its own quality。Sometimes，The author makes attractive but dubious claims，Such a paper may be selected for publication，Rather than another paper of higher quality or completeness。Another problem is，Many American legal journals，Every paper is almost guaranteed to be published in the journal，Theoretically，The paper should be judged on its intrinsic merit rather than the level of the journal in which it is published。But in reality，Readers usually pay more attention to whether a paper is published in a top-ranked journal。

Horta added，As an integral part of the research process，Peer review ability should also be an important part of doctoral training。Since a PhD is a research-based degree，Then the focus should not just be on instructing students on how to engage in research and publish results，Should also include participation in the peer review process、Evaluating the research of others，Contribute to the research of others。Today’s PhD students are tomorrow’s researchers and scholars，By evaluating and learning from the research of others，Can better understand how to conduct research，Have a clearer understanding of “what is good research”。