To develop and test the psychometric characteristics of a questionnaire measuring attitudes toward plagiarism.Participants were 227 undergraduates and graduate students from three Croatian universities, with a median age of 21 years (range 18 to 48). ...

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists’ engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists’ attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists’ attitudes and their open science practices.

I1 Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity Concurrent Sessions: 1. Countries' systems and policies to foster research integrity CS01.1 Second time around: Implementing and embedding a review of responsible conduct of research policy and practice in an Australian research-intensive university Susan Patricia O'Brien CS01.2 Measures to promote research integrity in a university: the case of an Asian university Danny Chan, Frederick Leung 2. Examples of research integrity education programmes in different countries CS02.1 Development of a state-run “cyber education program of research ethics” in Korea Eun Jung Ko, Jin Sun Kwak, TaeHwan Gwon, Ji Min Lee, Min-Ho Lee CS02.3 Responsible conduct of research teachers’ training courses in Germany: keeping on drilling through hard boards for more RCR teachers Helga Nolte, Michael Gommel, Gerlinde Sponholz 3. The research environment and policies to encourage research integrity CS03.1 Challenges and best practices in research integrity: bridging the gap between policy and practice Yordanka Krastev, Yamini Sandiran, Julia Connell, Nicky Solomon CS03.2 The Slovenian initiative for better research: from national activities to global reflections Ursa Opara Krasovec, Renata Sribar CS03.3 Organizational climate assessments to support research integrity: background of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) and the experience with its use at Michigan State University Brian C. Martinson, Carol R. Thrush, C.K. Gunsalus 4. Expressions of concern and retractions CS04.1 Proposed guidelines for retraction notices and their dissemination Ivan Oransky, Adam Marcus CS04.2 Watching retractions: analysis of process and practice, with data from the Wiley retraction archives Chris Graf, Verity Warne, Edward Wates, Sue Joshua CS04.3 An exploratory content analysis of Expressions of Concern Miguel Roig CS04.4 An ethics researcher in the retraction process Michael Mumford 5. Funders' role in fostering research integrity CS05.1 The Fonds de Recherche du Québec’s institutional rules on the responsible conduct of research: introspection in the funding agency activities Mylène Deschênes, Catherine Olivier, Raphaëlle Dupras-Leduc CS05.2 U.S. Public Health Service funds in an international setting: research integrity and compliance Zoë Hammatt, Raju Tamot, Robin Parker, Cynthia Ricard, Loc Nguyen-Khoa, Sandra Titus CS05.3 Analyzing decision making of funders of public research as a case of information asymmetry Karsten Klint Jensen CS05.4 Research integrity management: Empirical investigation of academia versus industry Simon Godecharle, Ben Nemery, Kris Dierickx 5A: Education: For whom, how, and what? CS05A.1 Research integrity or responsible conduct of research? What do we aim for? Mickey Gjerris, Maud Marion Laird Eriksen, Jeppe Berggren Hoej CS05A.2 Teaching and learning about RCR at the same time: a report on Epigeum’s RCR poll questions and other assessment activities Nicholas H. Steneck CS05A.4 Minding the gap in research ethics education: strategies to assess and improve research competencies in community health workers/promoteres Camille Nebeker, Michael Kalichman, Elizabeth Mejia Booen, Blanca Azucena Pacheco, Rebeca Espinosa Giacinto, Sheila Castaneda 6. Country examples of research reward systems and integrity CS06.1 Improving systems to promote responsible research in the Chinese Academy of Sciences Ding Li, Qiong Chen, Guoli Zhu, Zhonghe Sun CS06.4 Exploring the perception of research integrity amongst public health researchers in India Parthasarathi Ganguly, Barna Ganguly 7. Education and guidance on research integrity: country differences CS07.1 From integrity to unity: how research integrity guidance differs across universities in Europe. Noémie Aubert Bonn, Kris Dierickx, Simon Godecharle CS07.2 Can education and training develop research integrity? The spirit of the UNESCO 1974 recommendation and its updating Daniele Bourcier, Jacques Bordé, Michèle Leduc CS07.3 The education and implementation mechanisms of research ethics in Taiwan's higher education: an experience in Chinese web-based curriculum development for responsible conduct of research Chien Chou, Sophia Jui-An Pan CS07.4 Educating principal investigators in Swiss research institutions: present and future perspectives Louis Xaver Tiefenauer 8. Measuring and rewarding research productivity CS08.1 Altimpact: how research integrity underpins research impact Daniel Barr, Paul Taylor CS08.2 Publication incentives: just reward or misdirection of funds? Lyn Margaret Horn CS08.3 Why Socrates never charged a fee: factors contributing to challenges for research integrity and publication ethics Deborah Poff 9. Plagiarism and falsification: Behaviour and detection CS09.1 Personality traits predict attitude towards plagiarism of self and others in biomedicine: plagiarism, yes we can? Martina Mavrinac, Gordana Brumini, Mladen Petrovečki CS09.2 Investigating the concept of and attitudes toward plagiarism for science teachers in Brazil: any challenges for research integrity and policy? Christiane Coelho Santos, Sonia Vasconcelos CS09.3 What have we learnt?: The CrossCheck Service from CrossRef Rachael Lammey CS09.4 High p-values as a sign of data fabrication/falsification Chris Hartgerink, Marcel van Assen, Jelte Wicherts 10. Codes for research integrity and collaborations CS10.1 Research integrity in cross-border cooperation: a Nordic example Hanne Silje Hauge CS10.3 Research integrity, research misconduct, and the National Science Foundation's requirement for the responsible conduct of research Aaron Manka CS10.4 A code of conduct for international scientific cooperation: human rights and research integrity in scientific collaborations with international academic and industry partners Raffael Iturrizaga 11. Countries' efforts to establish mentoring and networks CS11.1 ENRIO (European Network of...

Enhanced Differentiation of Amiodarone-Induced Thyrotoxicosis Types Using Semi-Quantitative 99mTc-MIBI Uptake Analysis: A Pilot Study - Article abstract #945444

The rising prevalence of overweight and obesity is characterized as a pandemic of the modern era. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence of overweight and obesity in healthy blood donors in Primorje-Gorski Kotar County,...

Introduction: Lung cancer is one of the most diagnosed malignancies with increasing incidence worldwide. Immunotherapy is the main oncological treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), for which the discovery of new efficient biomarkers is crucial. Scientific evidence points to the importance of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI), but its predictive significance is unclear. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical significance and predictive role of LIPI in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 mutation who are eligible for immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy. In addition, to our knowledge, this is the first time that the association between COVID-19 infection and the course and outcome of oncologic treatment of NSCLC has been investigated. Patients and Methods: Patients were divided into four study groups according to strictly defined clinical parameters, therapeutic approach, and COVID-19 infection. LIPI was determined and its predictive power was evaluated in all studied groups, as well as overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). Results: This study confirmed the understudied and uncertain predictive power and clinical relevance of LIPI as a biomarker in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients infected with COVID-19 had a higher survival rate than uninfected patients despite the therapeutic approach, which may be attributed to their hospitalization and intensive medical management during the pandemic. Conclusions: Findings obtained in this study may help to determine treatment options according to the clinical condition of the patient by using LIPI values as a non-invasive, readily available and economically acceptable predictive biomarker in lung oncology.