TY - JOUR
T1 - Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review
AU - Bordewijk, Esmee M.
AU - Li, Wentao
AU - van Eekelen, Rik
AU - Wang, Rui
AU - Showell, Marian
AU - Mol, Ben W.
AU - van Wely, Madelon
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This work was supported by Elsevier. Elsevier does not have a role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit for publication.
Funding Information:
Conflict of interest: MS is the information specialist of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertiliy Group. BWM is supported by a National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). BWM reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. MvW is coordinating editor of the Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertiliy Group. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Inc.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Objective: To give an overview of the available methods to investigate research misconduct in health-related research. Study Design and Setting: In this scoping review, we conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and The Virtual Health Library portal up to July 2020. We included papers that mentioned and/or described methods for screening or assessing research misconduct in health-related research. We categorized identified methods into the following four groups according to their scopes: overall concern, textual concern, image concern, and data concern. Results: We included 57 papers reporting on 27 methods: two on overall concern, four on textual concern, three on image concern, and 18 on data concern. Apart from the methods to locate textual plagiarism and image manipulation, all other methods, be it theoretical or empirical, are based on examples, are not standardized, and lack formal validation. Conclusion: Existing methods cover a wide range of issues regarding research misconduct. Although measures to counteract textual plagiarism are well implemented, tools to investigate other forms of research misconduct are rudimentary and labour-intensive. To cope with the rising challenge of research misconduct, further development of automatic tools and routine validation of these methods is needed. Trial registration number: Center for Open Science (OSF) (https://osf.io/mq89w).
AB - Objective: To give an overview of the available methods to investigate research misconduct in health-related research. Study Design and Setting: In this scoping review, we conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and The Virtual Health Library portal up to July 2020. We included papers that mentioned and/or described methods for screening or assessing research misconduct in health-related research. We categorized identified methods into the following four groups according to their scopes: overall concern, textual concern, image concern, and data concern. Results: We included 57 papers reporting on 27 methods: two on overall concern, four on textual concern, three on image concern, and 18 on data concern. Apart from the methods to locate textual plagiarism and image manipulation, all other methods, be it theoretical or empirical, are based on examples, are not standardized, and lack formal validation. Conclusion: Existing methods cover a wide range of issues regarding research misconduct. Although measures to counteract textual plagiarism are well implemented, tools to investigate other forms of research misconduct are rudimentary and labour-intensive. To cope with the rising challenge of research misconduct, further development of automatic tools and routine validation of these methods is needed. Trial registration number: Center for Open Science (OSF) (https://osf.io/mq89w).
KW - Data integrity
KW - Methods
KW - Randomization
KW - Research misconduct
KW - Scientific misconduct
KW - Scoping review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107760205&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.012
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 34033915
AN - SCOPUS:85107760205
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 136
SP - 189
EP - 202
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -