El fraude y las malas prácticas científicasApuntes sobre la situación en España.

  1. Eduard Aibar Puentes 1
  1. 1 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
    info
    Universitat Oberta de Catalunya

    Barcelona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01f5wp925

    Geographic location of the organization Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Journal:
Salux: revista de ciencias y humanidades

ISSN: 2444-5304

Year of publication: 2024

Volume: 10

Issue: 18

Pages: 3-12

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Salux: revista de ciencias y humanidades

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify and analyse some unique aspects of fraud and scientific misconduct in Spain. The study is based on an extensive bibliographic review of previous international works and the few published on the Spanish situation, on a series of interviews with national experts and some people with important responsibilities in this field and on the monitoring of different recent notorious cases. Firstly, we analyse the conceptual problem of defining and understanding scientific fraud using the theoretical framework of science and technology studies (STS) and questioning some unfounded assumptions of the usual approaches. Moreover, we focus on the Spanish case, reviewing the few empirical studies published so far and the mentions of Spanish researchers in informal means of monitoring fraud at an international level. Finally, we address the issue of the institutional treatment of fraud in Spain and identify and discuss some peculiar and problematic features in this contex

Bibliographic References

  • 1. Lesné, S., Koh, M., Kotilinek, L. et al. RETRACTED ARTICLE: A specific amyloid-β protein assembly in the brain impairs memory. Nature. 2006; 440: 352–357.
  • 2. Vance, F., Scholte, S. J., Parry, J., Nightingale, P., Munafò, M., Lahart, I. M., ... & Coen, S. Enablers and Inhibitors of Research Integrity. UKRIO; 2024.
  • 3. Mody, C. C., Sibum, H. O., & Roberts, L. L. Integrating research integrity into the history of science. History of science. 2020; 58(4): 369-385.
  • 4. Horbach, S. S., & Halffman, W. W. The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’. Research policy. 2019; 48(2): 492-502.
  • 5. Proctor, R. N. Agnotología. Revista de Economía Institucional. 2020; 22(42): 15-48.
  • 6. Biagioli, M., & Lippman, A. (Eds.). Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research. Mit Press; 2020.
  • 7. Van Noorden, R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023—a new record. Nature. 2023; 624(7992): 479-481.
  • 8. Oransky, I. & A. Marcus. Science Corrects Itself, Right? A Scandal at Stanford Says It Doesn’t. Scientific American. 2023; August 1.
  • 9. Xie, Y., Wang, K. & Kong, Y. Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2021; 27(4): 41.
  • 10. Candal-Pedreira, C., Ghaddar, A., Pérez-Ríos, M., Varela-Lema, L., Álvarez-Dardet, C., & Ruano-Ravina, A. Scientific misconduct: A crosssectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers. Accountability in Research. 2023: 1–24.
  • 11. Candal-Pedreira, C., Ross, J. S., ReyBrandariz, J., & Ruano-Ravina, A. (2024). Retraction of publications in Spain: A retrospective analysis using the Retraction Watch database. Medicina Clínica. 2024; (in press).
  • 12. Delgado López-Cózar, E., & MartínMartín, A. Detectando patrones anómalos de publicación científica en España (I): Las evidencias empíricas. Anales de Química de la RSEQ. 2023; 119(2): 71-86.
  • 13. Delgado López-Cózar, E., & A. MartínMartín. Detectando patrones anómalos de publicación científica en España (II). Las causas: el impacto del sistema de evaluación científica. Anales de Química de la RSEQ. 2024; 120: 67-84.
  • 14. Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C., & Holm, S.. Should research misconduct be criminalized? Research Ethics. 2020; 16(1-2): 1-12.
  • 15. Feenstra, R. A., Carretero García, C., & Gómez Nicolau, E. Perception of Research Misconduct in a Spanish University. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2024; 1-24.
  • 16. Oviedo-García, M. The review mills, not just (self-) plagiarism in review reports, but a step further. Scientometrics. 2024; 1-9.
  • 17. Marco Cuenca, G., Arquero Avilés, R., & Salvador Oliván, J. A. Ética en la publicación científica biomédica. Revisión de las publicaciones retractadas en España Profesional de la Información. 2019; 28( 2).
  • 18. Repiso, R., & Montero-Díaz, J. Transformaciones y desafíos en la evaluación de la investigación universitaria en España: una mirada crítica a la evolución de los Sexenios. Anuario ThinkEPI. 2023; 17.
  • 19. Frías-Navarro, D., Pascual-Soler, M., Perezgonzalez, J., Monterde-i-Bort, H., & Pascual-Llobell, J. Spanish scientists’ opinion about science and researcher behavior. The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2021; 24. e7
  • 20. Abril-Ruiz A. Manzanas podridas: Malas prácticas de investigación y ciencia descuidada [Internet]. PsyArXiv. 2019. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z82mh
  • 21. Pérez, J.I. & J. Sevilla. Los males de la ciencia. Pamplona: Next Door Publishers; 2022.
  • 22. Oransky I, Chawla DS, Kincaid E, Youmshajekian L, Joelving F. Retraction watch [Internet]. Retraction Watch. [citado el 11 de noviembre de 2024]. Disponible en: https://retractionwatch.com/
  • 23. PubPeer [Internet]. Pubpeer.com. [citado el 11 de noviembre de 2024]. Disponible en: https://pubpeer.com/
  • 24. Schneider L, Yang M. For better science [Internet]. For Better Science. [citado el 11 de noviembre de 2024]. Disponible en: https://forbetterscience.com/Jump
  • 25. P. Something rotten in the state of Spain, say whistleblowers. Times Higher Education. 2012; 9 August: 18-1
  • 26. Marcus, A. Nature walks back mentorship prize for Spanish scientist with nine retractions. Retraction Watch. 2019; 25 Sept.
  • 27. Schneider, L. Spanish elites rally in support of data manipulation. For Better Science. 2019; 30 Jan
  • 28. Schneider, L. Manel Esteller, the Schrödinger cat of Barcelona. For Better Science. 2016; 10 Oct..
  • 29. Chawla, D.S. How critics say a computer scientist in Spain artificially boosted his Google Scholar metrics. Retraction Watch. 2022; 25 March.
  • 30. O’Grady, C. Spanish university head accused of inflating citations to his own work. Science. 2024; 27 Sept
  • 31. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Collins, T.A. & Baas, J. Evolving patterns of extreme publishing behavior across science. Scientometrics. 2024; 1-14.
  • 32. Joelving, F. Paper-mill articles buoyed Spanish dean’s research output. Retraction Watch. 2024; 18 Jan.
  • 33. Giorgini V, Mecca JT, Gibson C, Medeiros K, Mumford MD, Connelly S, Devenport LD. Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Account Res. 2015; 22(3):123- 38.
  • 34. Linville, C. L., Cairns, A. C., Garcia, T., Bridges, B., Herington, J., Laverty, J. T., & Tanona, S. How Do Scientists Perceive the Relationship Between Ethics and Science? A Pilot Study of Scientists' Appeals to Values. Science and engineering ethics. 2023; 29(3): 15.
  • 35. Bouter, L. Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved. Accountability in Research. 2023; 1–10.
  • 36. Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A. K., ... & Veltri, G. A. Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature. 2020; 586(7829): 358-360
Data source: Dialnet