Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact.

Introduction: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of "predatory journals," fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes.

Inclusion Criteria: This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered.

Methods: This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and, subsequently, full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables.

Review Registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/u8yrn.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00167DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

fraudulent erroneous
16
erroneous data
16
evidence synthesis
16
tools techniques
8
techniques methods
8
methods processes
8
data evidence
8
scoping review
8
systematic reviews
8
review will
8

Similar Publications

This paper reports that data used by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel (1956) to estimate risks of hereditary damage in the US population were falsified, greatly exaggerating the risks. These risk estimates were mostly based on the first of many mouse specific-locus experiments of William and Liane Russell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which were determined in 1996 to be erroneous by a US Department of Energy (DOE) investigation of scientific misconduct. The basis of the falsification is that William Russell removed data on a large mutation cluster from the control group resulting in a falsely elevated estimate of the induced frequency of radiation-induced gene mutations.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact.

Introduction: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of medical research is unquestionable. Nevertheless, the scientific community has raised several concerns about a possible fraudulent use of these tools that might be used to generate inaccurate or, in extreme cases, erroneous messages that could find their way into the literature. In this experiment, we asked a generative AI program to write a technical report on a non-existing Magnetic Resonance Imaging technique called Magnetic Resonance Audiometry, receiving in return a full seemingly technically sound report, substantiated by equations and references.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.

J Gen Philos Sci

June 2022

Independent researcher, 761-0799, PO Box 7, Ikenobe 3011-2 Kagawa-ken, Japan.

Unlabelled: Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides substantial financial support to low-income workers in the USA, yet around a quarter of EITC payments are estimated to be erroneous or fraudulent. Beginning in 2017, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 requires the Internal Revenue Service to spend additional time processing early EITC claims, delaying the issuance of tax refunds. Leveraging unique data, this paper investigates how delayed tax refunds affected the experience of hardship and unsecured debt among EITC recipients.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF