Highlights
- •3.1% of corresponding authors declared having committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years.
- •23.8% declared having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years.
- •85.6% think that publication bias is present.
- •50% had a honorary author on any of their publications in the past 5 years.
- •Despite these reports of academic dishonesty, overall confidence in the integrity of cardiovascular imaging research is high (median 8 / 10).
Abstract
Objective
To gain more insight in scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging
research by conducting a survey among all corresponding authors who published in cardiovascular
imaging journals.
Methods
Corresponding authors who published in one of eight major cardiovascular imaging journals
in 2021 were requested to complete a questionnaire about scientific integrity in the
field of cardiovascular imaging.
Results
Responses from 160 corresponding authors were received. The majority of respondents
had a medical doctor degree (81.1%), held an academic position (93.8%, of which 44.0%
as full professor), and had >10 years of research experience (72.5%). Overall confidence
in the integrity of published scientific work in cardiovascular imaging was high,
with a median score of 8 out of 10 (IQR 2). 5 respondents (3.1%) declared having committed
scientific fraud in the past 5 years and 38 respondents (23.8%) declared having witnessed
or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years.
85.6% of respondents think that publication bias is present. 50% of respondents declared
that any of their publications in the past 5 years had a co-author who actually did
not deserve this co-authorship.
Conclusion
Experts in the field report that several forms of scientific fraud, publication bias,
and honorary authorship are present in cardiovascular imaging research. Despite these
reports of academic dishonesty, overall confidence in the integrity of cardiovascular
imaging research is deemed high.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Multimodality cardiac imaging in the 21st century: evolution, advances and future opportunities for innovation.Br J Radiol. 2021; 94: 20200780https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20200780
- Publication trends in noninvasive cardiovascular imaging: 1991–2011: a retrospective observational study.Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2013; 3: 247-254
- Scientific misconduct and medical journals.JAMA. 2018; 320: 1985-1987https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14350
- Journal citation reports (InCites).https://jcr.clarivate.com/Date accessed: August 8, 2022
- Scientific integrity in cardiovascular imaging survey.https://rug.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5hYyPdCnnruuV5YDate accessed: August 8, 2022
- Educating PhD students in research integrity in Europe.Sci Eng Ethics. 2021; 27: 5https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00290-0
- Honorary authorship: is there any chance to stop it? Analysis of the literature and a personal opinion.Tomography. 2021; 7: 801-803https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography7040067
- Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research.Eur J Radiol. 2022; 156110553https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110553
TC Kwee M Almaghrabi RM Kwee Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med, in press. doi:10.2967/jnumed.122.264679.
- Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: assessment of frequency and associated factors.Radiology. 2011; 259: 479-486https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101500
- Response rates, nonresponse bias, and data quality: results from a National Survey of senior healthcare leaders.Public Opin Q. 2015; 79: 130-144https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu052
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 02, 2023
Accepted:
January 26,
2023
Received in revised form:
January 24,
2023
Received:
November 28,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
