Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams.

Area of Science:

• Biomedical research
• Scientific integrity
• Research ethics

Background:

• Modern scientific research is increasingly complex and multidisciplinary, necessitating large author teams.
• This complexity raises challenges in assigning accountability for scientific misconduct.
• Existing guidelines for author accountability vary, including joint, individual, and guarantor models.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the correlation between author byline position and responsibility for scientific misconduct.
• To provide empirical evidence to inform the debate on assigning accountability in scientific publications.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 80 scientific misconduct investigations from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
• Examination of 184 publications associated with these misconduct cases.
• Application of binary regression models to assess the likelihood of misconduct responsibility based on author position.

Main Results:

• Author byline position significantly correlates with responsibility for scientific misconduct.
• First authors are 38% more likely to be responsible for misconduct compared to middle authors (p<0.01).
• Corresponding authors are 14% more likely to be responsible (p<0.05).

Conclusions:

• Findings support a guarantor-like model where first authors hold primary accountability for misconduct.
• This model appears effective in identifying responsible parties without unduly implicating other authors.
• Empirical data can guide the development of clearer guidelines for scientific accountability.