Scientific Integrity in the Digital Age: Challenges and Responsibilities for Oncology Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2026v72n1.5712Keywords:
Scientific Misconduct, Ethics, Research, Generative Artificial IntelligenceAbstract
Scientific communication in oncology supports clinical and policy screening decisions by providing access to published, assessable, and verifiable evidence. In this context, scientific integrity is not only an ethical imperative but the foundation of evidence-based oncology practice. Recent data indicate an increase in retractions, associated with the expansion of paper mills, image manipulation, and methodological transparency limitations, a scenario that is aggravated by digital technologies and generative artificial intelligence (AI), which can both aid in scientific wording as well as facilitate the production of non-verifiable content. As a response, international editorial guidelines and Brazilian institutional initiatives have reinforced principles of transparency, accountability, and AI-usage disclaimers. The conclusion is that preventing misconduct requires a multifaceted approach, involving education in integrity, fraud detection, consistent investigation, and sanction policies, in addition to rigor in the use of references as a scientific literature tracking and auto-correction mechanism.
Downloads
References
Qi Q, Huang J, Wu Y, et al. Recent trends: Retractions of articles in the oncology field. Heliyon. 2024;10(12):e33007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33007
Grimes DR. Towards replicability and sustainability in cancer research. BJC Reports. 2024;2(65). doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44276-024-00090-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44276-024-00090-6
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
Van Noorden R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023-a new record. Nature. 2023;624(7992):479-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8
Van Noorden R. How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature. 2023;623(7987):466-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x
Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, et al. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2022;379:e071517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
Heck S, Bianchini F, Souren NY, et al. Fake data, paper mills, and their authors: the International Journal of Cancer reacts to this threat to scientific integrity. Int J Cancer. 2021;149(3):492-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33599 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33604
Sanderson K. Science’s fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills. Nature. 2024;626(7997):17-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00159-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00159-9
Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio. 2016;7(3):e00809-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00809-16 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00809-16
Errington TM, Mathur M, Soderberg CK, et al. Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology. eLife. 2021;10:e71601. doi: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601
Howard FM, Li A, Riffon MF, et al. Characterizing the increase in Artificial Intelligence content detection in oncology scientific abstracts from 2021 to 2023. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2024;8:e2400077. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.24.00077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.24.00077
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals [Internet]. Filadelfia: ICMJE; 2025 [acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Comitê de Ética em Publicações. COPE position statement: authorship and AI tools [Internet]. Chandler’s Ford: COPE; 2023 [acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
Zielinski C, Winker MA, Aggarwal R, et al. Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations. Colomb Med. 2023;54(3):e1015868. doi: https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v54i3.5868
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature. 2023;613:612. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science. 2023;379:313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
World Conference on Research Integrity [Internet]. Singapore: WCRIF; 2013. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, 2010 set 22 [acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement
World Conference on Research Integrity [Internet]. Montreal: WCRIF; 2013. Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations, 2013 maio [acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/montreal-statement
Comitê de Ética em Publicações. COPE Guidelines: retraction guidelines [Internet]. Chandler’s Ford: COPE; 2025 [acesso 2025 jan 18]. v. 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. Diretrizes Básicas para a Integridade na Atividade Científica [Internet]. Brasília, DF: CNPq; 2011 [atualizado 2016; acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/cnpq/pt-br/composicao/comissao-de-integridade/diretrizes
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. Código de Boas Práticas Científicas [Internet]. São Paulo: FAPESP; 2011 [atualizado 2014; acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://fapesp.br/boaspraticas/
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Plano de Integridade CAPES (2024–2025) [Internet]. Brasília, DF: CAPES; 2022 [acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/governanca/gestao-da-integridade
VII Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity. Science and Publication Ethics (VII BRISPE) [Internet]. 2024 dec 5-6; Rio de Janeiro. Theme: Research integrity and generative artificial intelligence [acesso 2025 jan 18]. Disponível em: https://www.viibrispe2024.com/
Sampaio RC, Sabbatini M, Limongi R. Diretrizes para o uso ético e responsável da inteligência artificial generativa: um guia prático para pesquisadores [Internet]. São Paulo: Intercom; 2024 [acesso 2025 dez 15]. Disponível em: https://prpg.unicamp.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/livro-diretrizes-ia-1.pdf
Gil AC. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. São Paulo: Atlas; 2002.
Santos MA. Metodologia científica e a pesquisa acadêmica: diretrizes e práticas. São Paulo: Atlas; 2010.
Cabanac G, Labbé C, Magazinov A. Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. arXiv preprint. 2021;arXiv:2107.06751. doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
Habibzadeh F. GPTZero performance in identifying artificial intelligence-generated medical texts: a preliminary study. J Korean Med Sci. 2023;38(38):e319. doi: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e319
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Os direitos morais e intelectuais dos artigos pertencem aos respectivos autores, que concedem à RBC o direito de publicação.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
