The PubPeer conundrum: Administrative challenges in research misconduct proceedings.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2390007

Minal M Caron, Carolyn T Lye, Barbara E Bierer, Mark Barnes

{"title":"The PubPeer conundrum: Administrative challenges in research misconduct proceedings.","authors":"Minal M Caron, Carolyn T Lye, Barbara E Bierer, Mark Barnes","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2390007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The founders of PubPeer envisioned their website as an online form of a \"journal club\" that would facilitate post-publication peer review. Recently, PubPeer comments have led to a significant number of research misconduct proceedings - a development that could not have been anticipated when the current federal research misconduct regulations were developed two decades ago. Yet the number, frequency, and velocity of PubPeer comments identifying data integrity concerns, and institutional and government practices that treat all such comments as potential research misconduct allegations, have overwhelmed institutions and threaten to divert attention and resources away from other research integrity initiatives. Recent, high profile research misconduct cases accentuate the increasing public interest in research integrity and make it inevitable that the use of platforms such as PubPeer to challenge research findings will intensify. This article examines the origins of PubPeer and its central role in the modern era of online-based scouring of scientific publications for potential problems and outlines the challenges that institutions must manage in addressing issues identified on PubPeer. In conclusion, we discuss some potential enhancements to the investigatory process specified under federal regulations that could, if implemented, allow institutions to manage some of these challenges more efficiently.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2390007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The founders of PubPeer envisioned their website as an online form of a "journal club" that would facilitate post-publication peer review. Recently, PubPeer comments have led to a significant number of research misconduct proceedings - a development that could not have been anticipated when the current federal research misconduct regulations were developed two decades ago. Yet the number, frequency, and velocity of PubPeer comments identifying data integrity concerns, and institutional and government practices that treat all such comments as potential research misconduct allegations, have overwhelmed institutions and threaten to divert attention and resources away from other research integrity initiatives. Recent, high profile research misconduct cases accentuate the increasing public interest in research integrity and make it inevitable that the use of platforms such as PubPeer to challenge research findings will intensify. This article examines the origins of PubPeer and its central role in the modern era of online-based scouring of scientific publications for potential problems and outlines the challenges that institutions must manage in addressing issues identified on PubPeer. In conclusion, we discuss some potential enhancements to the investigatory process specified under federal regulations that could, if implemented, allow institutions to manage some of these challenges more efficiently.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

PubPeer 的难题：研究不当行为诉讼程序中的行政挑战。

PubPeer 的创始人将其网站设想为 "期刊俱乐部 "的在线形式，以促进出版后的同行评议。最近，PubPeer 评论引发了大量研究不当行为诉讼--这是 20 年前制定现行联邦研究不当行为法规时无法预料的。然而，PubPeer 评论的数量、频率和速度，以及机构和政府将所有此类评论视为潜在的研究不当行为指控的做法，已经让机构不堪重负，并有可能转移对其他研究诚信行动的关注和资源。近期备受瞩目的研究不当行为案件凸显了公众对研究诚信日益增长的兴趣，这也使得使用 PubPeer 等平台质疑研究结果的现象不可避免地会愈演愈烈。本文探讨了 PubPeer 的起源及其在现代基于网络的科学出版物潜在问题搜索中的核心作用，并概述了机构在处理 PubPeer 上发现的问题时必须应对的挑战。最后，我们讨论了联邦法规中规定的调查程序的一些潜在改进措施，如果这些措施得到实施，机构就可以更有效地应对其中的一些挑战。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.