Should Institutional Review Boards for Research Ethics be HeldAccountable for Retracted Publications from Academia and Industry? by Fred Yao Gbagbo
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In recent times there has been evidence of many publications across academia and industry being retracted for various ethical violations in research including data Fabrication, Manipulation, Falsification, and Plagiarism despite the widespread Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to uphold Research Ethics from conceptualizing a study, publication of results and implementation of findings. Although the structure and membership composition of IRBs may vary globally, they all have converging guidelines.
This study tackles research misconduct by holding Institutional Review Boards accountable for retracted articles, employing interest analysis and principle based idea analysis in critically reviewing my concerns. Based on the evidence from the literature on the increasing numbers of retracted papers that have had ethical clearance, I argued that, if IRBs are doing their job correctly, research misconduct should be minimal. Further, if research misconduct resulting in retracted publications becomes a spreading problem that attracts sanctions, then IRBs must be considered as part of the problem and should suffer sanctions too.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
References
1. Abbott, L., & Grady, C. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating
IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3-19.
2. Aspura, M. K., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2018). An analysis of Malaysian retracted
papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics, 115(3), 1315-1328.
3. Ayodele, F. O., Yao, L., & Haron, H. (2019). Promoting ethics and integrity in management
academic research: Retraction initiative. Science and engineering ethics, 25(2), 357-382.
4. Azoulay, P., Bonatti, A., & Krieger, J. L. (2017). The career effects of scandal: Evidence from
scientific retractions. Research Policy, 46(9), 1552-1569.
5. Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its
Causes, by Charles Babbage (1830). To which is Added on the Alleged Decline of Science
in England, by a Foreigner (Gerard Moll) with a Foreword by Michael Faraday (1831) (Vol.
1). B. Fellowes.
6. Barnes, M., & Florencio, P. S. (2002). Financial conflicts of interest in human subjects’
research: the problem of institutional conflicts. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(3),
390-402.
7. Bernard, J. S. (2015). Student engagement: A principle-based concept analysis.
International journal of nursing education scholarship, 12(1), 111-121.
8. Beskow, L. M., Grady, C., Iltis, A. S., Sadler, J. Z., & Wilfond, B. S. (2009). Points to
consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB. Irb, 31(6), 1.
9. Burris, S. (2008). Regulatory innovation in the governance of human subjects’ research:
A cautionary tale and some modest proposals. Regulation & Governance, 2(1), 65-84.
10. Candilis, P. J., Lidz, C. W., Appelbaum, P. S., Arnold, R. M., Gardner, W., Garverich, S., ...
& Simon, L. J. (2012). The silent majority: who speaks at IRB meetings? IRB, 34(4), 15.
11. Capron, A. M. (2001). Capron argues that a half-century after The Nuremberg Code was
written and pub-licized, major ethical problems persist in connection with the local
supervision of human research in general and with psychiatric research in particularespecially. Biomedical Ethics, 247.
12. Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the
regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994.
13. Christensen Hughes, J., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic misconduct in higher education:
Beyond student cheating. In Academic Integrity in Canada (pp. 81-102). Springer, Cham.
14. Churchill, S., Largent, E. A., Taggert, E., & Lynch, H. F. (2022). Diversity in IRB membership:
Views of IRB chairpersons at US Universities and Academic Medical Centers. AJOB
Empirical Bioethics, 13(4), 237-250.
15. Committee on Publication Ethics Council. (2019, December 10). COPE guidelines:
Retraction guidelines. Retrieved March 1, 2022 from
https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines
16. Das, K. K., & Biradar, M. S. (2016). Ethical publications in medical research. In BioethicsMedical, Ethical and Legal Perspectives (pp. 39-54). IntechOpen
17. Davis, M. S., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Causal factors implicated in research
misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and engineering ethics, 13(4), 395-414.
18. Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling tough topics in academic
integrity. ABC-CLIO.
19. Emanuel, E. J., Wood, A., Fleischman, A., Bowen, A., Getz, K. A., Grady, C., ... & Sugarman,
J. (2004). Oversight of human participants’ research: identifying problems to evaluate
reform proposals. Annals of internal medicine, 141(4), 282-291.
20. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and
career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PloS one, 10(6),
e0127556.
21. Fanelli, D., Schleicher, M., Fang, F. C., Casadevall, A., & Bik, E. M. (2022). Do individual
and institutional predictors of misconduct vary by country? Results of a matched-control
analysis of problematic image duplications. PloS one, 17(3), e0255334.
22. Fleetwood, J. (2001). Conflicts of interest in clinical research: Advocating for patientsubjects. In Widener L. Symp. J. (Vol. 8, p. 105).
23. Frank, F., Florens, N., Meyerowitz-Katz, G., Barriere, J., Billy, É., Saada, V., ... & Besançon,
L. (2023). Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals–a case study of 456 trials
from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection. Research integrity and
peer review, 8(1), 9.
24. Friesen, P., Gelinas, L., Kirby, A., Strauss, D. H., & Bierer, B. E. (2023). IRBs and the
protection-inclusion dilemma: Finding a balance. The American Journal of Bioethics,
23(6), 75-88.
25. Galbraith, K. L. (2017). Life after research misconduct: Punishments and the pursuit of
second chances. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 26-32.
26. Gelinas, L., Strauss, D. H., Chen, Y., Ahmed, H. R., Kirby, A., Friesen, P., & Bierer, B. E.
(2023). Protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented: IRB practices and
attitudes. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 18(1-2), 58-68.
27. Gopalakrishna, G., Ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022).
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential
explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PloS one,
17(2), e0263023.
28. Gopalan, G., Bunger, A. C., & Powell, B. J. (2020). Skills for developing and maintaining
community-partnerships for dissemination and implementation research in children’s
behavioral health: implications for research infrastructure and training of early career
investigators. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services
Research, 47(2), 227-243.
29. Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from
the scholarly literature. PloS one, 7(10), e44118.
30. Harbour, D. C. (2011). TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRPERSON GUIDELINES FOR
(Doctoral dissertation, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD).
31. Heimer, C. A., & Petty, J. (2010). Bureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of
human subjects’ research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 601-626.
32. Horner, J., & Minifie, F. D. (2011). Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship,
conflicts of interest, and research misconduct.
33. Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. (2012). Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: Analysis of a
crucial issue for academic publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading
journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied Economics and
Business Research, 2(3), 172-183.
34. Kim, W. O. (2012). Institutional review board (IRB) and ethical issues in clinical research.
Korean journal of anesthesiology, 62(1), 3-12.
35. Lasco, G., Yu, V. G., & Palileo-Villanueva, L. (2021). How ethics committees and
requirements are structuring health research in the Philippines: a qualitative study. BMC
Medical Ethics, 22(1), 85.
36. Malekia, S. E. (2017). Active Health Research Monitoring in Tanzania: Perspectives from
Members of Institutional Review Boards (Doctoral dissertation, Muhimbili University of
Health and Allied Sciences).
37. Nebeker, C., Harlow, J., Espinoza Giacinto, R., Orozco-Linares, R., Bloss, C. S., & Weibel,
N. (2017). Ethical and regulatory challenges of research using pervasive sensing and other
emerging technologies: IRB perspectives. AJOB empirical bioethics, 8(4), 266-276.
38. Patrick, C. J., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL
(Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study. Queensland University of
Technology.
39. Penrod, J., & Hupcey, J. E. (2005). Enhancing methodological clarity: principle‐based
concept analysis. Journal of advanced nursing, 50(4), 403-409.
40. Perry, K. H. (2011). Ethics, vulnerability, and speakers of other languages: How university
IRBs (do not) speak to research involving refugee participants. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(10),
899-912.
41. Pivovarova, E., Klitzman, R. L., Murray, A., Stiles, D. F., Appelbaum, P. S., & Lidz, C. W.
(2019). How Single Institutional Review Boards Manage Their Own Conflicts of Interest:
Findings from a National Interview Study. Academic medicine: journal of the Association
of American Medical Colleges, 94(10), 1554.
42. Redman, B. K. (2009). Research Misconduct and Fraud. The Penn Center Guide to
Bioethics, 213.
43. Rice, M. J. (2011). The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the
result is more animal-based research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine,
6(1), 1-10.
44. Robert, J. S. (2022). Misconduct in research administration: What is it? How widespread
is it? And what should we do about it? Accountability in Research, 1-20.
45. Rodriguez, L. L., Hanna, K. E., & Federman, D. D. (Eds.). (2003). Responsible research: A
systems approach to protecting research participants.
46. Rodríguez, M. M. D., Corralejo, S. M., Vouvalis, N., & Mirly, A. K. (2017). Institutional review
board: Ally not adversary. PSI CHI, The International Honor Society in Psychology, 22(2),
76-84.
47. Roje, R., Reyes Elizondo, A., Kaltenbrunner, W., Buljan, I., & Marušić, A. (2023). Factors
influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research
performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review. Accountability in
Research, 30(8), 633-671.
48. Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social
sciences, 1965–2009. JHU Press.
49. Sedler, R. A. (1982). Interest Analysis and Forum Preference in the Conflict of Laws: A
Response to the New Critics. Mercer L. Rev., 34, 593.
50. Seralegne, Y. Z., Wangamati, C. K., Bernabe, R. D., Farsides, B., Aseffa, A., & Zewdie, M.
(2023). Composition and capacity of Institutional Review Boards, and challenges
experienced by members in ethics review processes in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: An
exploratory qualitative study. Developing World Bioethics, 23(1), 50-58.
51. Serpico, K., Rahimzadeh, V., Gelinas, L., Hartsmith, L., Lynch, H. F., & Anderson, E. E.
(2022). Institutional review board use of outside experts: A national survey. AJOB
Empirical Bioethics, 13(4), 251-262.
52. Shah, S. K. (2013). Outsourcing ethical obligations: should the revised common rule
address the responsibilities of investigators and sponsors? Journal of Law, Medicine &
Ethics, 41(2), 397-410.
53. Shetty, Y. C., & Saiyed, A. A. (2015). Analysis of warning letters issued by the US Food and
Drug Administration to clinical investigators, institutional review boards and sponsors: a
retrospective study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(5), 398-403.
54. Siva, N., & Rajendran, P. (2023). Retracted publications in BRICS countries: an analytical
study. Scientometrics, 1-21.
55. Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal
consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife, 3,
e02956.
56. Taylor, T. E. (2001). Increased supervision of clinical research at home and abroad.
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 101(12), 696-698.
57. Tong, S., Shen, Z., Huang, T. Y., & Yang, L. (2022). Fighting Against Academic Misconduct:
What Can Scientometricians Do? Journal of Data and Information Science, 7(2), 4-5.
58. Vitak, J., Proferes, N., Shilton, K., & Ashktorab, Z. (2017). Ethics regulation in social
computing research: Examining the role of institutional review boards. Journal of
Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(5), 372-382.
59. Weinfurt, K. P., Friedman, J. Y., Dinan, M. A., Allsbrook, J. S., Hall, M. A., Dhillon, J. K., &
Sugarman, J. (2006). Disclosing conflicts of interest in clinical research: views of
institutional review boards, conflict of interest committees, and investigators. The Journal
of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(3), 581-591.
60. White, M. G. (2020). Why human subjects research protection is important. Ochsner
journal, 20(1), 16-33.
61. White, R. F. (2007). Institutional review board mission creep: the common rule, social
science, and the nanny state. The Independent Review, 11(4), 547-564.
62. Wolf, S. M., & Jones, C. M. (2020). Designing oversight for nanomedicine research in
human subjects: systematic analysis of exceptional oversight for emerging technologies.
In Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance (pp. 419-435). Routledge.
63. Xia, H. (2022). What scholars and IRBs talk when they talk about the Belmont principles
in crowd work‐based research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology