Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research

Purpose: To investigate the view of radiologists on the integrity of their own and their colleagues’ scientific work.Materials and methods: Corresponding authors of articles that were published in 12 general radiology journals in 2021 were invited to participate in a survey on scientific integrity.Results: A total of 219 (6.2 %) of 3,511 invited corresponding authors participated. Thirteen (5.9 %) respondents reported having committed scientific fraud, and 60 (27.4 %) witnessed or suspect scientific fraud among their departmental members in the past 5 years. Misleading reporting (32.2 %), duplicate/redundant publication (26.3 %), plagiarism (15.3 %), and data manipulation/falsification (13.6 %) were the most commonly reported types of scientific fraud. Publication bias exists according to 184 (84.5 %) respondents, and 89 (40.6 %) respondents had honorary authors on their publications in the past 5 years. General confidence in the integrity of scientific publications ranged between 2 and 10 (median: 8) on a 0–10 point scale. Common topics of interest and concern among respondents were authorship criteria and assignments, perverse incentives (including the influence of money, funding, and academic promotions on the practice of research), and poorly performed research without intentional fraud.Conclusion: Radiology researchers reported that scientific fraud and other undesirable practices such as publication bias and honorary authorship are relatively common. Their general confidence in the scientific integrity of published work was relatively high, but far from perfect. These data may trigger stakeholders in the radiology community to place scientific integrity higher on the agenda, and to initiate cultural and policy reforms to remove perverse research incentives.</p

Which factors are associated with fraud in medical imaging research?

Purpose: To investigate the determinants of fraud in medical imaging research. Method: This study analyzed aggregated survey data on scientific integrity completed by 877 corresponding authors who published in imaging journals in 2021. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine the association of scientific fraud with the following variables: survey participants’ age (&lt;18, 18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, or &gt; 65 years), gender (male, female, or other), Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of their country of work (linear 0–100 scale), academic degree (medical doctor or other), academic position (none, fellow/resident, instructor/ lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, or other), and years of research experience (&lt;5, 5–10, or &gt; 10 years). Results: Thirty-seven survey participants (4.2%) indicated they had committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, and 223 (25.4%) indicated they had witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by departmental colleagues in the past 5 years. Instructors/lecturers were significantly more likely (P = 0.029) and fellows/residents were nearly significantly more likely (P = 0.050) to have committed scientific fraud, with odds ratios (ORs) of 4.954 and 5.156, respectively (Nagelkerke R2 of 0.114). Survey participants &gt; 65 years of age and survey participants working in less corrupt countries were significantly less likely (P = 0.022 and P = 0.044, respectively) to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud committed by their departmental colleagues, with ORs of 0.412 and 0.988 (per unit increase in CPI), respectively (Nagelkerke R2 of 0.064). Conclusions: Fraud in medical imaging research appears to be more common among junior faculty and in more corrupt countries.</p

Scientific Fraud, Publication Bias, and Honorary Authorship in Nuclear Medicine

Our objective was to investigate nuclear medicine scientists’ experience with scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship. Methods: Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the 15 general nuclear medicine journals (according to Journal Citation Reports) in 2021 received an invitation to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: In total, 254 (12.4%) of 1,897 corresponding authors completed the survey, of whom 11 (4.3%) admitted to having committed scientific fraud and 54 (21.3%) reported having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by someone in their department in the past 5 y. Publication bias was considered present by 222 (87.4%) respondents, and honorary authorship practices were experienced by 100 (39.4%) respondents. Respondents assigned a median score of 8 (range, 2–10) on a 1- to 10-point scale for their overall confidence in the integrity of published work. On multivariate analysis, researchers in Asia had significantly more confidence in the integrity of published work, with a b-coefficient of 0.983 (95% CI, 0.512–1.454; P &lt; 0.001). A subset of 22 respondents raised additional concerns, mainly about authorship criteria and assignments, the generally poor quality of published studies, and perverse incentives of journals and publishers. Conclusion: Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship appear to be nonnegligible practices in nuclear medicine. Overall confidence in the integrity of published work is high, particularly among researchers in Asia.</p

Integrity in cardiovascular imaging research

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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 &gt;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. Conclusion: 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.</p

Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research

Purpose: To investigate the view of radiologists on the integrity of their own and their colleagues’ scientific work. Materials and methods: Corresponding authors of articles that were published in 12 general radiology journals in 2021 were invited to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: A total of 219 (6.2 %) of 3,511 invited corresponding authors participated. Thirteen (5.9 %) respondents reported having committed scientific fraud, and 60 (27.4 %) witnessed or suspect scientific fraud among their departmental members in the past 5 years. Misleading reporting (32.2 %), duplicate/redundant publication (26.3 %), plagiarism (15.3 %), and data manipulation/falsification (13.6 %) were the most commonly reported types of scientific fraud. Publication bias exists according to 184 (84.5 %) respondents, and 89 (40.6 %) respondents had honorary authors on their publications in the past 5 years. General confidence in the integrity of scientific publications ranged between 2 and 10 (median: 8) on a 0–10 point scale. Common topics of interest and concern among respondents were authorship criteria and assignments, perverse incentives (including the influence of money, funding, and academic promotions on the practice of research), and poorly performed research without intentional fraud. Conclusion: Radiology researchers reported that scientific fraud and other undesirable practices such as publication bias and honorary authorship are relatively common. Their general confidence in the scientific integrity of published work was relatively high, but far from perfect. These data may trigger stakeholders in the radiology community to place scientific integrity higher on the agenda, and to initiate cultural and policy reforms to remove perverse research incentives

Time to Reconsider Routine Percutaneous Biopsy in Spondylodiscitis?

Percutaneous image-guided biopsy currently has a central role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected spondylodiscitis. However, on the basis of recent evidence, the value of routine image-guided biopsy in this disease can be challenged. In this article, we discuss this recent evidence and also share a new diagnostic algorithm for spondylodiscitis that was recently introduced at our institution. Thus, we may move from a rather dogmatic approach in which routine image-guided biopsy is performed in any case to a more individualized use of this procedure. Percutaneous image-guided biopsy, while valuable, is an invasive procedure, and evidence has shown rather disappointing positive microbiologic culture yields of around 33%. Recent evidence also has shown that percutaneous image-guided biopsy rarely adds any new information when blood cultures have positive findings and that an effective empiric treatment can be started in most of cases even when the microbiologic culprit remains unknown. Finally, there is currently no evidence that percutaneous image-guided biopsy improves patient outcome

FDG-PET/CT for diagnosis of cyst infection in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Purpose: Cyst infections are a common complication in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). Diagnosing these infections often remains challenging. Conventional imaging techniques such as ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), and standard magnetic resonance imaging have several drawbacks and disadvantages. The purpose of this pictorial essay was to illustrate and discuss the potential value of18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/CT in diagnosing cyst infection in ADPKD. Methods: Exemplary (ADPKD) patients who underwent FDG-PET/CT as part of their routine clinical work-up in our institution are presented to show the potential value and drawbacks of this imaging technique in diagnosing cyst infection. In addition, the current literature and guidelines on this topic were reviewed. Results: FDG-PET/CT appears to be a sensitive method for the detection of cyst infection, but it is not infallible. Furthermore, FDG uptake in cysts and cyst-like lesions is not specific and clinical and radiological correlations are essential to improve specificity and minimize the risk of falsely discarding other diseases, in particular malignancy. Conclusion: FDG-PET/CT seems to be a useful imaging modality to diagnose cyst infections in ADPKD. However, its exact diagnostic value has not been established yet due to the lack of a reliable reference standard in previous studies on this topic