Credit: xmex/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Dealing with plagiarism? Look at thy neighbour

Four doctors affiliated with Kathmandu University (KU) in Nepal are going to be fired because they plagiarised data in two papers. The papers were retracted last year from the Bali Medical Journal, where they had been published. A dean at the university, Dipak Shrestha, told a media outlet that the matter will be settled within two weeks. A total of six doctors, including the two above, are also going to be blacklisted by the journal. This is remarkably swift and decisive action against a problem that refuses to go away in India for many reasons. But I’m not an apologist; one of those reasons is that many teachers at colleges and universities seem to think “plagiarism is okay”. And for as long as that attitude persists, academicians are going to be able to plagiarise and flourish in the country.

One of the other reasons plagiarism is rampant in India is the language problem. As Praveen Chaddah, a former chairman of the University Grants Commission, has written, there is a form of plagiarism that can be forgiven – the form at play when a paper’s authors find it difficult to articulate themselves in English but have original ideas all the same. The unforgivable form is when the ideas are plagiarised as well. According to a retraction notice supplied by the Bali Medical Journal, the KU doctors indulged in plagiarism of the unforgivable kind, and were duly punished. In India, however, I’m yet to hear of an instance where researchers found to have been engaging in such acts were pulled up as swiftly as their Nepali counterparts were, or had sanctions imposed on their work within a finite period and in a transparent manner.

The production and dissemination of scientific knowledge should not have to suffer because some scientists aren’t fluent with a language. Who knows, India might already be the ‘science superpower’ everyone wants it to be if we’re able to account for information and knowledge produced in all its languages. But this does not mean India’s diversity affords it the license to challenge the use of English as the de facto language of science; that would be stupid. English is prevalent, dominant, even hegemonic (as K. VijayRaghavan has written). So if India is to make it to the Big League, then officials must consider doing these things:

  1. Inculcate the importance of communicating science. Writing a paper is also a form of communication. Teach how to do it along with technical skills.
  2. Set aside money – as some Australian and European institutions do1 – to help those for whom English isn’t their first, or even second, language write papers that will be appreciated for their science instead of rejected for their language (unfair though this may be).
  3. DO WHAT NEPAL IS DOING – Define reasonable consequences for plagiarising (especially of the unforgivable kind), enumerate them in clear and cogent language, ensure these sanctions are easily accessible by scientists as well as the public, and enforce them regularly.

Researchers ought to know better – especially the more prominent, more influential ones. The more well-known a researcher is, the less forgivable their offence should be, at least because they set important precedents that others will follow. And to be able to remind them effectively when they act carelessly, an independent body should be set up at the national level, particularly for institutions funded by the central government, instead of expecting the offender’s host institution to be able to effectively punish someone well-embedded in the hierarchy of the institution itself.

1. Hat-tip to Chitralekha Manohar.

Featured image credit: xmex/Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

Some research misconduct trends by the numbers

A study published in eLIFE on August 14, 2014, looked at data pertaining to some papers published between 1992 and 2012 that the Office of Research Integrity had determined contained research misconduct. From the abstract:

Data relating to retracted manuscripts and authors found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have committed misconduct were reviewed from public databases. Attributable costs of retracted manuscripts, and publication output and funding of researchers found to have committed misconduct were determined. We found that papers retracted due to misconduct accounted for approximately $58 million in direct funding by the NIH between 1992 and 2012, less than 1% of the NIH budget over this period. Each of these articles accounted for a mean of $392,582 in direct costs (SD $423,256). Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI.

While the number of retractions worldwide is on the rise – also because the numbers of papers being published and of journals are on the rise – the study addresses a subset of these papers and only those drawn up by researchers who received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

pubsfreq

Among them, there is no discernible trend in terms of impact factors and attributable losses. In the chart below, the size of each datapoint corresponds to the direct attributable loss and its color, to the impact factor of the journal that published the paper.

tabpublic 15-08-2014 100128

However, is the time to retraction dropping?

The maximum time to retraction has been on the decline since 1997. However, on average, the time to retraction is still fluctuating, influenced as it is by the number of papers retracted and the nature of misconduct.

trendTimeToRetr

No matter the time to retraction or the impact factors of the journals, most scientists experience a significant difference in funding before and after the ORI report comes through, as the chart below shows, sorted by quanta of funds. The right axis displays total funding pre-ORI and the left, total funding post-ORI.

prepostfund

As the study’s authors summarize in their abstract: “Researchers experienced a median 91.8% decrease in publication output and large declines in funding after censure by the ORI,” while total funding toward all implicated researchers went from $131 million to $74.5 million.

There could be some correlation between the type of misconduct and decline in funding, but there’s not enough data to determine that. Nonetheless, there are eight instances in 1992-2012 when the amount of funding increased after the ORI report, of which the lowest rise as such as is seen for John Ho, who committed fraud, and the highest for Alan Landay, implicated for plagiarism, a ‘lesser’ charge.

incfundFrom the paper:

The personal consequences for individuals found to have committed research misconduct are considerable. When a researcher is found by the ORI to have committed misconduct, the outcome typically involves a voluntary agreement in which the scientist agrees not to contract with the United States government for a period of time ranging from a few years to, in rare cases, a lifetime. Recent studies of faculty and postdoctoral fellows indicate that research productivity declines after censure by the ORI, sometimes to zero, but that many of those who commit misconduct are able to find new jobs within academia (Redman and Merz, 2008, 2013). Our study has found similar results. Censure by the ORI usually results in a severe decrease in productivity, in many cases causing a permanent cessation of publication. However the exceptions are instructive.

Retraction Watch reported the findings with especial focus on the cost of research misconduct. They spoke to Daniele Fanelli, one part of whose quote is notable – albeit no less than the rest.

The question of collateral damage, by which I mean the added costs caused by other research being misled, is controversial. It still has to be conclusively shown, in other words, that much research actually goes wasted directly because of fabricated findings. Waste is everywhere in science, but the role played by frauds in generating it is far from established and is likely to be minor.

References

Stern, A.M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R.G. and Fang, F.C., Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications, eLIFE. August 14, 2014;3:e02956.