Independent board needed to promote research integrity, US panel says
Abstract
A new US report calls for the creation of an independent advisory board to help scientists, scientific institutions, journals, and other participants tackle research misconduct and reduce questionable practices, which, while they might not represent misconduct, harm research enterprise.1 The report was prepared by a committee convened by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to deal with growing concerns that, despite efforts to promote integrity, serious misconduct continues to be reported, the number of journal article retractions has risen, and a substantial …
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Scientific misconduct occurs in many disciplines and many countries in the world, including Japan, the UK and the USA, as well as many other countries.
“Finally, and most importantly, it cannot be emphasized enough that scientific misconduct occurs in many disciplines and many countries in the world, including Japan, the UK and the USA, as well as many other countries [23–28].”
Cites
Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process
Arrison, T. (2014) · doi:10.2172/1126508 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tong, Z., Li, F., Ogawa, Y., Watanabe, N., & Furukawa, T. A. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0554-2 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
- Authors
- McCarthy, M.
- Corresponding author
- McCarthy, Michael
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2017-04-13
- Volume
- 357
- Pages
- j1879
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2605464956
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2018: 1
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- research integrity, research misconduct, questionable research practices, retraction, scientific journals, science policy
- MeSH terms
- Data Accuracy, Humans, Publishing, Research, Risk Management, United States, Scientific Misconduct, United States Office of Research Integrity, Advisory Committees, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
