Scientific misconduct and bias in cardiovascular imaging research among concerns reported in new survey
A new study out of the Netherlands details instances of scientific misconduct and publication bias in the realm of cardiovascular imaging publications, causing some to question the integrity of cardiovascular research [1].
That’s according to new survey data from 160 corresponding authors from eight cardiovascular imaging journals. The data, published on Feb. 2 in Clinical Imaging, reveal that more than 20% of respondents have witnessed scientific fraud within their department at some point during the past five years and more than 85% reported the issue of publication bias.
The new paper is authored by Robert M. Kwee of Zuyderland Medical Center and Maan T. Almaghrabi and Thomas C. Kwee, both from University Medical Center Groningen. The authors caution that although overall scientific misconduct in cardiovascular imaging research is rare, it can be costly.
“It is of utmost importance that published scientific research is trustworthy. Unreliable data may compromise patient outcomes and can lead to unnecessary healthcare costs,” the authors noted.
The survey respondents, most of whom held academic positions and had more than ten years of experience in the field, also brought light to the issue of crediting co-authors for contributions; more than half of them cited instances of co-authors taking credit where it was not due or deserved.
Respondents cited issues such as economic and career pressure as reasons for misconduct, publication bias and undeserved co-author accolades.
“The modern system is bound to promote false results, fabricated data and partial reporting, because of the economic pressure (grant applications, therapy marketing…), the necessity to publish in terms of career and to get further funding, and also the huge increase in publication opportunities with the steep increase of open-access (and pay to publish),” one respondent explained.
Additionally, the authors suggest that residents do not typically receive training on scientific misconduct and/or fraud as part of their curriculum.
“In this regard, there may have been respondents that may not be aware that they have done anything wrong, which could have led to an underestimation of the amount of scientific fraud,” the authors suggested, adding that research institutions and universities should promote greater awareness of the problem.
Despite these discrepancies, the authors noted that the overall confidence in the integrity of published work in cardiovascular imaging remains high. Respondents rated it 8/10 on average.
The abstract is available here.
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She began covering the medical imaging industry for Innovate Healthcare in 2021.