![\"Suzanne](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Suzanne-Farley-headshot-2018-small.jpg?resize=674%2C824&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a large volume of research moving through the publication pipeline<\/a>, often at an accelerated rate. Given the widely publicised concerns regarding flawed COVID-19 research<\/a>, now more than ever, the spotlight is on ensuring best practice and ethical conduct in research and publications. Following her talk<\/a> at the 2020 European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) symposium, Suzanne Farley, Director of the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group (SNRIG)<\/a>, spoke to The Publication Plan about her experience of research integrity breaches and her group\u2019s work to combat this.<\/p>\n For anyone unfamiliar with the SNRIG, what role does it play in detecting and investigating research integrity problems among submissions or publications at Springer Nature? <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cSNRIG is an advisory body serving all Springer Nature content divisions: books, journals, magazines and databases. We advise staff and their external editorial partners on best practice for resolving research integrity and publication ethics problems, in both published and pre-publication content. We also advise policy and operations colleagues on improving quality control during pre-publication manuscript processing workflows.\u201d<\/p>\n What are some of the most common problems identified? <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPlagiarism, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, image manipulation, data fabrication, substandard peer-review, identity theft, and paper mill submissions.\u201d<\/p>\n How often does the SNRIG investigate potential issues pre- versus post-publication? In general, should more be done by publishers to establish the quality of submissions during peer review, or at other pre-publication stages?<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cBased on 2020 data, 65% of the cases investigated by SNRIG concerned published content, with the remainder detected before publication. These numbers show that publishers should indeed be doing more before publication to detect problematic submissions.<\/p>\n Based on 2020 data, 65% of the cases investigated by SNRIG concerned published content\u2026 These numbers show that publishers should indeed be doing more before publication to detect problematic submissions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Springer Nature has initiated a series of projects this year to start shifting this needle. We\u2019ll be piloting new checks \u2013 some facilitated by people, some by software \u2013 with the aim of detecting the issues that most frequently underlie research integrity and publication ethics cases more efficiently. Think image manipulation, paper mills, peer review manipulation, unethical research and irreproducibility. Wherever possible, we\u2019ll use artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure the checks are fast, consistent and scalable, being always mindful of striking the right balance between what a machine can do and where expert human oversight is required.\u201d<\/p>\n Have you noticed any changes in the type or volume of SNRIG\u2019s workload during the COVID-19 pandemic?<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThere was an overall increase in submissions to journals in 2020; submissions directly related to COVID-19 accounted for some of the spike. So, SNRIG\u2019s workload, like that of everyone else involved in the publication workflow, increased proportionally. We noticed that authors of COVID-19-related papers were more frequently submitting their manuscripts to multiple journals at the same time, and they were more likely to miscategorise their original research articles as \u2018Letters to the Editor\u2019 or the like, perhaps in an effort to circumvent thorough peer review.<\/p>\n Authors of COVID-19-related papers were more frequently submitting their manuscripts to multiple journals at the same time, and they were more likely to miscategorise their original research articles\u2026perhaps in an effort to circumvent thorough peer review.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s impossible to know what motivates individual authors to make these choices, or to distinguish unequivocally between honest error and deliberate misconduct. That said, getting their manuscripts published as fast as possible is a safe guess as to motivation. But circumventing peer review and overloading peer reviewers and editors, by submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time, are obviously not OK. Springer Nature increased the stringency of existing checks early during the pandemic to crack down on this behaviour.\u201d<\/p>\n Circumventing peer review and overloading peer reviewers and editors, by submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time, are obviously not OK.<\/p>\n It\u2019s often stated that science \u2018self-corrects\u2019 and that retraction of flawed research is one of the ways in which this occurs. According to Retraction Watch, there was a 40-fold increase in the annual number of retractions between 2000 and 2020<\/a>. Why do you think there\u2019s been such a huge increase in the past 20 years, and how do you think that the open science movement will impact retraction rates in the future?<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cScience does indeed self-correct, but it does so too slowly. There are no reliable baseline data, but my opinion is that we\u2019re mostly playing catch-up. That is, there has not<\/em> been a 40-fold increase in the frequency of research integrity issues in the past 20 years. Rather, there has been a combination of a somewhat increased frequency (as technology that facilitates image manipulation has evolved, and third parties like paper mills have emerged, for example) plus a steep increase in awareness in academic communities about research integrity. People are now much more likely to report issues to publishers. Indeed, there’s a growing community of incredibly committed whistleblowers who dedicate themselves to trawling the historical literature for errors. All of this adds up to a steep increase in the number of retractions. This increase will persist as we continue to clean up existing problematic publications, while working on preventing more problematic content from being published in the first place.<\/p>\n Open research and publication practices should have a positive impact. If practices like pre-printing and making raw data and peer review history publicly available become the norm, it will be more difficult to conceal deliberate misconduct and easier to detect honest errors. Open research practices are definitely the way forward.\u201d <\/p>\n If practices like pre-printing and making raw data and peer review history publicly available become the norm, it will be more difficult to conceal deliberate misconduct and easier to detect honest errors. Open research practices are definitely the way forward.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n According to a 2012 analysis of retracted biomedical and life science research articles, there\u2019s been a 10-fold increase in retractions due to scientific fraud since 1975<\/a>. You\u2019ve previously noted that the SNRIG adopts a non-accusatory approach, adhering to the principle of innocent until proven guilty, with the aim of correcting the scholarly record rather than administering punishment. Do you think that this approach allows you to tackle and resolve more issues, more quickly than historically slow retraction processes<\/a>? Given the rise in scientific fraud, do you feel that the SNRIG\u2019s approach does enough to discourage serial offenders? <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cYes, SNRIG\u2019s approach allows us to more thoroughly investigate and therefore resolve more issues. But it is frustratingly slow. I often use the analogy of SNRIG being like a police force but without the power to exercise a search warrant. We rely on cordial relationships with authors, peer reviewers, editors and all other stakeholders to facilitate our investigations. Without their cooperation, we often cannot access essential investigation materials (eg raw data, out-of-system correspondence), so cannot reach unequivocal (and legally defensible) conclusions and take definitive actions.<\/p>\n In the past 3 years, SNRIG has taken a much more \u2018Springer Nature-wide\u2019 approach to case work. For example, if we suspect that a problem on a single paper may be part of a wider network of misconduct (eg a paper mill), we will check all Springer Nature journals (~3,000) and books for the author names, peer reviewer names, email addresses, and manuscript title. This cross-portfolio functionality required us to build a new database; previously, it was not possible to search across journals and books in this way. We also inform institutions and funders much more frequently about suspected misconduct. This approach deters serial offenders from submitting to Springer Nature.<\/p>\n What we need to do next is take a cross-publisher approach. There\u2019s no point deterring serial offenders from submitting to Springer Nature if they can simply submit to another publisher.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n What we need to do next is take a cross-publisher approach. There\u2019s no point deterring serial offenders from submitting to Springer Nature if they can simply submit to another publisher. It\u2019s great to see organisations like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE<\/a>) and the STM Association<\/a> starting to facilitate these cross-publisher interactions.\u201d<\/p>\n When retraction occurs, vague retraction notices<\/a> can hinder readers\u2019 understanding of exactly what has happened. How do you think publishers should approach Expressions of Concern or retraction notices? <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThere has been an improvement in the amount and consistency of information provided in post-publication notices, but the improvements have not been uniform across the sector. Even publishers that have improved still do not provide a huge amount of information in retraction notices or Editorial Expressions of Concern. One factor preventing further progress is the ever-increasing amount of litigation involved in research integrity investigations. It is unfortunately very common for authors and other stakeholders to threaten legal action, which means only information that is 100% verifiable can be made public in post-publication notices.\u201d <\/p>\n Readers may be shocked to know the extent of some research integrity cases, for example those involving paper mills<\/a>. In your experience, how serious is the problem and how can publishers cooperate to tackle it?<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPaper mills are one of the few things that keep me awake at night. They are pervasive and devious, continuously adapting their processes to circumvent detection. It\u2019s a real cat-and-mouse game. Their papers pollute the literature, waste huge amounts of editor and peer reviewer time, and negatively impact the work of honest researchers.<\/p>\n Paper mills are one of the few things that keep me awake at night. They are pervasive and devious, continuously adapting their processes to circumvent detection.<\/p>\n At Springer Nature we have been working with data scientists to map networks of authors, peer reviewers, email addresses and manuscript titles associated with paper mills. The maps will be used to flag potential paper mill submissions as they hit our systems. We\u2019re also training our staff and editors to manually spot the features of paper mill submissions. And we\u2019re sharing everything we learn with other publishers, via COPE and the STM Association. I hope we\u2019ll soon get to a point where publishers can share identifying information about suspected paper mill submissions, but there are some major legal barriers, including those related to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), that need to be overcome first.\u201d <\/p>\n Those involved in research misconduct are likely to implement increasingly sophisticated methods. In the future, how do you think advancing technology will help detect potential problems with articles?<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThere are some really impressive tools being developed by an ever-increasing number of extremely talented computer scientists (the recent inaugural Computational Research Integrity conference<\/a> showcased a selection). Many of these tools are at an early stage of development, but I\u2019m hopeful that we\u2019ll be able to integrate the front-runners into publishers\u2019 quality check workflows within the next few years. Then it\u2019s a matter of staying one step ahead of those intent on research misconduct, ensuring our tools are better than theirs.\u201d <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/SNRIG-advisory-role.jpg?resize=724%2C483&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/peer-reviewers-overloaded.jpg?resize=750%2C465&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/stakeholder-cooperation.jpg?resize=700%2C499&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/paper-mills-cat-and-mouse.jpg?resize=724%2C483&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/publisher-regulatory-body.jpg?resize=749%2C466&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n