Missed one of the events from our Research Integrity series?
No problem! You can catch all the replays and presentation materials over on our ORCID On-Demand page.
Research Integrity Featuring Infolinx Research Integrity: The ORCID Privacy Policy Research Integrity Featuring Signals Research Integrity Featuring TCC Africa Researching Integrity Featuring STM Solutions
Check it out here: https://info.orcid.org/orcid-on-demand/
Did you know?
ORCID has an unwavering commitment to data privacy. In this session from ORCID's Research Integrity webinar series you can learn about updates to ORCID's Privacy Policy and other information about data protection at ORCID.
Watch the replay here: https://vimeo.com/1035343268?share=copy
Download the presentation here: https://orcid.filecamp.com/s/d/QjAIIeHAKi8uUjtt
Just deposited preprint reporting results of Delphi survey on attitudes to sanctions for serious research misconduct
https://zenodo.org/records/15774358
#fraud #researchIntegrity
3/ Nicola Adamson, Journal Development Editor
With a background in neuroscience, Nicola’s interest in #ResearchIntegrity led her to eLife, starting as an Editorial Assistant. Now, she has a key role in shaping our growth through tracking data trends and engaging with editors.
"Ambiguous one-word journal titles are a MDPI trademark (“Foods”, “Plants”). In the spirit of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”, Springer Nature has launched a series of journals, the “Discover” series, with near-identical names (Discover Food, Discover Plants).
(...) You can try it yourself in our “Guess Who Is Who” mini-game (...)
Why? How? And let’s ask the most important question of all: who will this benefit? It’s certainly not the authors."
Sadly easy to see that this emphasis on "gold-standard science" by the US administration is just the latest and more plausible-sounding version of "Do your own research" - a blatant attempt to use the inherent scepticism of genuine science as a weapon against science itself. No good can come from anti-science ideologues cherry-picking ideas from research integrity and taking them out of context.
https://www.cos.io/about/news/cos-statement-on-restoring-gold-standard-science-executive-order
13/ The MAHA report isn’t just an oversight—it’s a deliberate disregard for legitimate scientific inquiry. The scientific community is pushing back hard, as researchers and experts are publicly denying involvement in the studies cited. 
#ResearchIntegrity #FakeStudies #MAHAReport
Science is under threat and our Library @tibhannover is stepping up! To safeguard vital research, TIB has built a dark archive of #arXiv, preserving millions of scientific preprints in case the main platform goes down. A great step for resilient, decentralized access to knowledge worldwide!
#library #science #darkarchive #USPol #OpenScience #DigitalPreservation #ResearchIntegrity
https://blog.tib.eu/2025/05/14/protecting-science-tib-builds-dark-archive-for-arxiv/
“We call on the administration to cease its wholesale assault on U.S. science, and we urge the public to join this call. Share this statement with others, contact your representatives in Congress, and help your community understand what is at risk. The voice of science must not be silenced. We all benefit from science, and we all stand to lose if the nation’s research enterprise is destroyed.”
"Shared responsibility (or failure)?" - if there's a research integrity panel at a conference, then of course I need to be there.
"Who should bear the burden of maintaining the integrity of the scientific record?" is a recurrent question, discussed by the panel chaired by Sara Rouhi of AIPP.
Preparing an internal workshop on #SecondaryDataAnalysis for tomorrow, brings me back to my thread on the very minimal #ResearchEthics and #ResearchIntegrity checks to perform when one has found a data set:
https://mastodon.social/deck/@jrboehnke/109823124976479472
What I think I have not moved to here, were some brief comments regarding minimum standards for the use of routinely collected data in health services. 
9/ Sponsor Bias: Commissioned by the Claims Conference, an organization dedicated to Holocaust remembrance, there's a risk that the wording of questions or interpretation of results could be influenced by specific objectives. While this doesn't invalidate the study, it's crucial to consider this potential bias when analyzing the findings. #SponsorBias #ResearchIntegrity
Just Published: "Post-Publication Review: The Role of Science News Outlets and Social Media" https://doi.org/10.56042/alis.v71i4.14254 #ResearchIntegrity #PeerReview #OpenScience #ScienceCommunication
The Times They Are a-Changin'...let's renew #introduction.
I am a French physics scholar involved in local & national academic politics.
After the bird death, I found a Fediverse home on https://fediscience.org, under the mammoth shadow: a friendly, open and inclusive one.
Despite the risks, I am open to a Bluesky bridge.
Toots in French & English in the following fields: #OpenScience, #OpenInfrastructure, #fairdata, #foss, #ResearchAssessment and #ResearchIntegrity.
My toots lifetime is six months.
I received an email from Clarivate's #PeerReview system that a reviewer of an article I handled would like some feedback on their review.
I have searched but cannot find out how the data I provide are going to be used.
I am asked to be quantitative ratings on some aspects (clarity, helpfulness etc) which won't be shared with the reviewer. And I can provide written comments, which will be shared with the reviewer.
Anyone experience to share?
Reflecting that I started using #NightshiftEditor 2+ years ago:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7224353965084217344/
Main point of my first post then was that there are tools to help avoiding unwanted references to retracted papers such as the #RetractionWatch data base
https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/
and you can link tools such as @zotero https://www.zotero.org/blog/retracted-item-notifications/
or since last year even #Endnote:
https://support.clarivate.com/Endnote/s/article/EndNote-20-Retraction-Alerts?language=en_US
"In June a notice posted on the website of the journal Nature set a new scientific record. It withdrew what is now the most highly cited research paper ever to be retracted."
HT Retraction Watch
The "1x error & no update published"
is a good example of this heterogeneity:
According to the retraction note, in places the direction of a variable was incorrectly interpreted. This is something I have seen addressed in other places by a correction instead of a retraction. Equally, publishing an updated version as in the other two places would be an option.
Sholto David, who was one of the first to blog about about the Dana Farber fabrication scandal, is talking with @STAT's Jonathan Wosen & @ElisabethBik about #data sleuthing at #STATBreakthrough
Says he "used to do Yahoo Answers quite obsessively" 
#research #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicMastodon #medicine
https://www.statnews.com/2024/01/27/sholto-david-profile-dana-farber-retractions/
#fraud isn’t just papermills.
Top superconductivity researcher manages to get papers published in Nature and then retracted TWICE. The processes at Nature look v dubious based on this account… in Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00716-2
#researchIntegrity #physics #superconductivity #journals
