ge2p2globalfdn

Support for the integrity of Argentina’s science system

International Science Council – 29 Feb 2024 In a letter to the network of authorities of research institutions in Argentina (RAICyT), the ISC expresses its concern regarding the future of Argentina’s science system. The ISC offers its assistance in working with local and regional communities to develop a robust science sector which contributes to Argentina’s social, environmental and economic success.

The International Science Council (ISC) is deeply concerned that the current wave of decisions affecting Argentina’s science system and infrastructure will be counterproductive. Specifically, the ISC notes:

the closure of Argentina’s Ministry of Science and Technology;
the mass dismissal of administrative staff reported throughout Argentina’s scientific institutions;
the freezing of funding for Argentina’s National Scientific and Technological Research Council (CONICET) and national universities to 2023 levels despite record inflation rates; and
the discontinuation of national research grant payments.

The ISC recognizes the difficult position of Argentina’s government as it seeks to restructure the country’s economy. Science can prove very helpful to the choices the government needs to make in rebuilding the economy. Investment for social and economic growth is critical and science is core to every domain of national development. A well-funded science and technology sector is essential for fostering innovation, driving sustainable development, and building long-term economic resilience, as demonstrated by all the world’s largest and most prosperous economies.

The ISC urges the government of Argentina to reconsider its recent decisions regarding the Argentinian science system. Advancing the country’s capacity for science, research, development, and innovation is a prerequisite investment for the future socio-economic success of Argentina and its people.

Argentina has a proud history in science and the Argentine science community is a critical resource for current and future generations. The ISC stands ready to assist to build a stronger Argentine science system, one that can and does contribute to economic recovery, productivity, social development, and the wellbeing of all Argentinians.

The ISC also stands ready to ensure Argentinian science is represented at its upcoming Global Knowledge Dialogue for Latin America and the Caribbean, to be held in Chile, 9-11 April 2024, presenting an opportunity for an open discussion on identifying regional scientific priorities, opportunities, and challenges, with a special emphasis on strategies for funding and executing sustainable science initiatives.

See the official letter.

Safeguarding research integrity.

Editorial :: The Lancet Feb 24, 2024 Volume 403 Number 10428 p699-780

Are allegations of research misconduct rising? With several recent high profile cases, it can certainly feel that way. Accusations of image manipulation by scientists at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute have recently led to several retractions. According to a Nature analysis, more than 14 000 papers were retracted in 2023—the highest number ever—with more than 8000 linked to Hindawi, an open access publisher, driven by what its owner Wiley has called “large-scale systematic manipulation” involving paper mills, reviewer mills, and fraudulent special issues. The role of artificial intelligence in misconduct is an additional concern. Research misconduct is nothing new, but the scale and reach of these cases represent a threat to the whole scientific enterprise. Research misconduct can not only contribute to research waste but also cause real harm to patients by distorting the evidence base. These cases have once again emphasised the fragile nature of trust in science. All key players in the research ecosystem—editors and publishers included—need to ask themselves some tough questions about the underlying drivers.

Individual researchers accountable for the planning, conduct, and reporting of studies need to take responsibility for misconduct. However, systemic factors and perverse incentives play an important part. Most institutions still use the numbers of papers published and journal impact factors as a proxy for quality in making decisions on hiring, promotion, or giving tenure. Allegations of misconduct are all too often not adequately investigated by institutions for fear of loss of reputation. Meanwhile, publishers are increasingly using growth in the number of publications, with insufficient attention to quality control, as the basis for their overarching business models, an unintended but deeply concerning consequence of the otherwise welcome move to open science. Special issues, featuring invited papers overseen by guest editors, were seen as a way to attract open access papers quickly. However, Hindawi and other publishers have suffered serious reputational loss with these initiatives, prompting the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to discuss guidance on special issues.

There have been efforts to deal with these systemic problems. The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) initiative and the Hong Kong Principles, an output of the 7th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), have attempted to make institutional research assessments a more comprehensive and quality-driven exercise. DORA has recently launched Reformscape, an online resource for sharing examples of good institutional practices around research assessment. Such changes are desirable but difficult to implement and time consuming for institutional leaders. How research excellence is defined will change only slowly, if at all.

Individual research misconduct sleuths have exposed several high-profile cases, but cannot be relied on to police the entire scientific record alone, just as the problem is not down to a few bad actors. COPE continues to hold editors accountable for correction of the scientific record by issuing retractions when needed. However, editors rely on institutions to conduct fair, timely, and thorough investigations. Comprehensive editorial and peer review assessments cannot always identify serious misconduct. The Chinese Government gave a deadline of Feb 15 to all universities to report all cases of retractions with reasons from January, 2021, to February, 2024, although it is unclear what the Government will do with this information. United2Act, a group of international stakeholders working to address paper mills, has produced a consensus statement outlining five key areas of action: education and awareness; improvement of post-publication corrections; research into paper mills; development of markers of trust; and dialogue between stakeholders. The 8th WCRI (Athens, Greece, June 2–5, 2024) will discuss paper mills and the intersection of artificial intelligence and research integrity. At The Lancet, we are discussing how we can best strengthen trustworthiness screening of the research submitted to us.

These efforts are all worthy initiatives in reaction to new developments threatening research integrity. But more needs to be done. All involved need to look honestly and deeply at their role in creating perverse incentives, at their motives of driving quantity over quality, and at their way of profiting from a system that is no longer rewarding and supporting researchers in the right way. In short, we need to think collectively and collaboratively about sustainable solutions for making research an environment where scientists do not just survive, but thrive.