- •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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 access
One-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 Imaging
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- 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
Published online: February 02, 2023
Accepted: January 26, 2023
Received in revised form: January 24, 2023
Received: November 28, 2022
© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.