Journal
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Volume 64, Issue 2, Pages 200-203Publisher
SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264679
Keywords
fraud; medical imaging; nuclear medicine; research; scientific misconduct
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Our study aimed to investigate scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship in the field of nuclear medicine. The results showed that a small percentage of corresponding authors admitted to committing scientific fraud and a significant number reported witnessing or suspecting scientific fraud in their department. Publication bias and honorary authorship were also prevalent. Researchers in Asia displayed higher confidence in the integrity of published work compared to researchers in other regions.
Our objective was to investigate nuclear medicine scientists' experience with scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship. Methods: Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the 15 general nuclear medicine journals (according to Journal Citation Reports) in 2021 received an invitation to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: In total, 254 (12.4%) of 1,897 corresponding authors completed the survey, of whom 11 (4.3%) admitted to having committed scientific fraud and 54 (21.3%) reported having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by someone in their department in the past 5 y. Publication bias was considered present by 222 (87.4%) respondents, and honorary authorship practices were experienced by 100 (39.4%) respondents. Respondents assigned a median score of 8 (range, 2-10) on a 1- to 10-point scale for their overall confidence in the integrity of published work. On multivariate analysis, researchers in Asia had significantly more confidence in the integrity of published work, with a b-coefficient of 0.983 (95% CI, 0.512-1.454; P , 0.001). A subset of 22 respondents raised additional concerns, mainly about authorship criteria and assignments, the generally poor quality of published studies, and perverse incentives of journals and publishers. Conclusion: Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship appear to be nonnegligible practices in nuclear medicine. Overall confidence in the integrity of published work is high, particularly among researchers in Asia.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available