Science Ethics

Humans are fundamentally imperfect beings who make mistakes. Acknowledging it is important for understanding how occasional errors may penetrate scholarly peer-reviewed literature. The history of science is rich with errors. Honest Error means an accidental or inadvertent mistake made in good faith while using a normal degree of care and attention.

Research misconduct is defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results".

• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Reporting errors is important for clearing scholarly publication record and stopping the spread of misleading information. Retraction Watch has a special reason category for researches reporting their own errors - it is called "Doing the right thing" category. Multiple examples show that researchers that step up to correct their mistakes are applauded. In 2020, the Nobel-prizewinning chemist Frances Arnold retracted a paper on using enzymes in chemical synthesis, which was appreciated by readers for honesty and self-correcting spirit. In her public statement, she said: “The very quick and widespread response to my tweets shows how strong the fear of doing the right thing is (especially among junior scientists). However, the response also shows that taking responsibility is still appreciated by most people.”

If you have questions or concerns about any publication, you can:

1. Address your concerns to the corresponding author of the paper;
2. Discuss the paper on PubPeer (allows anonymous commenting);
3. Address your concerns to the journal editor using the Letter to the Editor format;
4. Address your concerns through other publisher-assisted formats, like Matters Arising article type in Nature or Reader Comments in PLoS;
5. Remember that if paper has a preprint, most of preprint servers also allow public commenting. 
6. Be aware that retraction is not the only option. If a mistake is minor, corrections are more likely. Some journals offer retract and replace.

Some tips from Retraction Watch:

1. Follow the presumption of innocence - not every human error is a malice;
2. In corresponding, keep your tone calm and professional, stick to scientific evidence;
3. Be patient, on average a retraction takes about 3 years from the publication date of the faulty paper.

What happens to publications with identified misconduct?

The papers with identified misconduct get retracted and retraction notice is issued by a publisher. A manuscript retraction is a complex process because it is hosted on multiple platforms (e.g., journal's website, relevant indexing databases - Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref). In addition, manuscripts can be posted on personal or public websites (e.g. Research Gate) and may have associated preprints. Often, the retracted paper is not completely removed but stays posted with a watermark indicating a retraction. Retractions labeling is currently very inconsistent and requires vigilant inspection.

How can I know if the publication contains misconduct?

Did you know that retracted papers keep being cited long after being retracted? This is because their indexing on journal websites and relevant databases is very inconsistent and because the investigations may take a long time (the average is about 3 years). To make sure you do not base your research on publications containing errors or misconduct: 

1. Check the publication in Retraction Watch Database
2. Consider using other tools, e.g. Scite
3. Read papers critically and discuss them with your peers, report unreliable and irreproducible experiments.

What are examples of misconduct?

1. In 2007, at least 70 falsified crystal structures were accidentally discovered in Acta Crystallogr., Sect. E based on the unexplained Hirshfeld rigid-bond alerts that were confirmed by directly comparing two structure-factor files for all problem structures using a program written by Toine Schreurs. The key in confronting this research misconduct affiliated with two groups from Jinggangshan University in China (correspondence authors H. Zhong and T. Liu) was the journal’s requirement that the authors submit raw structure-factor files and the critical assessment of these files by an experienced Co-editor.
2. In 2007, Pattium Chiranjeevi, a Chemistry professor in India, was found guilty of plagiarizing and/or falsifying more than 70 research papers published in five different Chemistry journals between 2004 and 2007. Editors’ sole reliance on the peer-review process proved ineffective in discovering these cases of fraud prior to publications. After unpleasant revelations, more of Chiranjeevi’s papers were exposed and one of them was retracted after 16.2 years due to the lack of approval from its co-authors.
3. Among the most recent retractions due to unreliable results is the retraction of a Chemical Science article by Tan et al. This article reported Pd-free polymer synthesis using an amine-catalyzed Suzuki–Miyaura coupling reaction that was first described in Nature Catalysis by Xu et al. The latter was retracted in 324 days based on irreproducible results. Specifically, Xu’s extraordinary claim of the Pd-free synthesis was not supported by any subsequent studies; instead, the reaction was found to be catalyzed by a residual palladium impurity contained in amine. Within two months, three research teams posted preprints on the ChemRxiv server that later appeared as peer-reviewed Matters Arising articles in Nature Catalysis; and subsequently, both Xu’s and Tan’s papers were retracted (the latter, only 51 days after publication). 
4. Read more on Retraction Watch blog

Did you know that self-plagiarism is the most common case of misconduct?

Self-plagiarism is commonly described as recycling or reusing one's own specific words from previously published texts. Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Eldon Smith wrote: “If an author publishes the same article twice, he or she is guilty not only of the misconduct of duplicate publication, but also of plagiarism; this time, the author has plagiarized himself or herself." Did you know that self-plagiarism is one of the most common retraction reasons for Chemistry manuscripts?