Scientific misconduct
Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. It is violation of scientific integrity: violation of the scientific method and of research ethics in science, including in the design, conduct, and reporting of research.
A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions,[1] reproduced in The COPE report 1999:[2]
- Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
- Swedish definition: "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."
The consequences of scientific misconduct can be damaging for perpetrators and journal audience[3][4] and for any individual who exposes it.[5] In addition there are public health implications attached to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on false or fabricated research findings.
Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to the
Motivation
According to
- Career pressure
- Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
- Ease of fabrication
- In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are few strongly backed systems to investigate possible violations, attempt to press charges, or punish deliberate misconduct. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.[9]
- Monetary Gain
- In many scientific fields, the most lucrative options for professionals are often selling opinions. Corporations can pay experts to support products directly or indirectly via conferences. Psychologists can make money by repeatedly acting as an expert witness in custody proceedings for the same law firms.
Forms
The U.S.
- Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them. This is sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".[12] A more minor form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, or do not support the argument.[13]
- Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
- Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. One form is the appropriation of the ideas and results of others, and publishing as to make it appear the author had performed all the work under which the data was obtained. A subset is citation plagiarism – willful or negligent failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers, so as to give an improper impression of priority. This is also known as, "citation amnesia", the "disregard syndrome" and "bibliographic negligence".Matthew effect.[15]
- Plagiarism-fabrication – the act of taking an unrelated figure from an unrelated publication and reproducing it exactly in a new publication, claiming that it represents new data.
- Self-plagiarism – or multiple publication of the same content with different titles or in different journals is sometimes also considered misconduct; scientific journals explicitly ask authors not to do this. It is referred to as "salami" (i.e. many identical slices) in the jargon of medical journal editors. According to some editors this includes publishing the same article in a different language.[16]
Other types of research misconduct are also recognized:
- Ghostwriting – the phenomenon where someone other than the named author(s) makes a major contribution. Typically, this is done to mask contributions from authors with a conflict of interest.
- Conversely, research misconduct is not limited to not listing authorship, but also includes the act of conferring authorship on those who have not made substantial contributions to the research.[17][18] This is done by senior researchers who muscle their way onto the papers of inexperienced junior researchers[19] as well as others that stack authorship in an effort to guarantee publication. This is much harder to prove due to a lack of consistency in defining "authorship" or "substantial contribution".[20][21][22]
- Scientific misconduct can also occur during the peer-review process by a reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest. Reviewer-coerced citation can also inflate the perceived citation impact of a researcher's work and their reputation in the scientific community,[23] similar to excessive self-citation. Reviewers are expected to be impartial and assess the quality of their work. They are expected to declare a conflict of interest to the editors if they are colleagues or competitors of the authors. A rarer case of scientific misconduct is editorial misconduct,[24] where an editor does not declare conflicts of interest, creates pseudonyms to review papers, gives strongly worded editorial decisions to support reviews suggesting to add excessive citations to their own unrelated works or to add themselves as a co-author or their name to the title of the manuscript.
- Publishing in a
- The peer-review process can have limitations when considering research outside the conventional scientific paradigm: social factors such as "groupthink" can interfere with open and fair deliberation of new research.[27]
Photo manipulation
Compared to other forms of scientific misconduct, image fraud (manipulation of images to distort their meaning) is of particular interest since it can frequently be detected by external parties. In 2006, the Journal of Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detect
Although the type of manipulation that is allowed can depend greatly on the type of experiment that is presented and also differ from one journal to another, in general the following manipulations are not allowed:[citation needed]
- splicing together different images to represent a single experiment
- changing brightness and contrast of only a part of the image
- any change that conceals information, even when it is considered to be aspecific, which includes:
- changing brightness and contrast to leave only the most intense signal
- using clone tools to hide information
- showing only a very small part of the photograph so that additional information is not visible
Image manipulations are typically done on visually repetitive images such as those of blots and microscope images.[31]
Helicopter research
Neo-colonial research or
Frequently, during this kind of research, the local colleagues might be used to provide logistics support as
Responsibilities
Authorship responsibility
All authors of a scientific publication are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication.
Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more than one journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor of the
Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. The failure to keep data may be regarded as misconduct. Some scientific journals require that authors provide information to allow readers to determine whether the authors might have commercial or non-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are also commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Financial pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies.[46][48]
Research institution responsibility
In general, defining whether an individual is guilty of misconduct requires a detailed investigation by the individual's employing academic institution. Such investigations require detailed and rigorous processes and can be extremely costly. Furthermore, the more senior the individual under suspicion, the more likely it is that conflicts of interest will compromise the investigation. In many countries (with the notable exception of the United States) acquisition of funds on the basis of fraudulent data is not a legal offence and there is consequently no regulator to oversee investigations into alleged research misconduct. Universities therefore have few incentives to investigate allegations in a robust manner, or act on the findings of such investigations if they vindicate the allegation.
Well publicised cases illustrate the potential role that senior academics in research institutions play in concealing scientific misconduct. A King's College (London) internal investigation showed research findings from one of their researchers to be 'at best unreliable, and in many cases spurious'[49] but the college took no action, such as retracting relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring.
In a more recent case[50] an internal investigation at the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune determined that there was evidence of misconduct by Gopal Kundu, but an external committee was then organised which dismissed the allegation, and the NCCS issued a memorandum exonerating the authors of all charges of misconduct. Undeterred by the NCCS exoneration, the relevant journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) withdrew the paper based on its own analysis.
Scientific peer responsibility
Some academics believe that scientific colleagues who suspect scientific misconduct should consider taking informal action themselves, or reporting their concerns.[51] This question is of great importance since much research suggests that it is very difficult for people to act or come forward when they see unacceptable behavior, unless they have help from their organizations. A "User-friendly Guide," and the existence of a confidential organizational ombudsman may help people who are uncertain about what to do, or afraid of bad consequences for their speaking up.[52]
Responsibility of journals
Journals are responsible for safeguarding the research record and hence have a critical role in dealing with suspected misconduct. This is recognised by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which has issued clear guidelines[53] on the form (e.g. retraction) that concerns over the research record should take.
- The COPE guidelines state that journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism and unethical research.
- Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.
- Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).
Evidence emerged in 2012 that journals learning of cases where there is strong evidence of possible misconduct, with issues potentially affecting a large portion of the findings, frequently fail to issue an expression of concern or correspond with the host institution so that an investigation can be undertaken. In one case the Journal of Clinical Oncology issued a correction despite strong evidence that the original paper was invalid.[54][failed verification] In another case,[29] Nature allowed a corrigendum to be published despite clear evidence of image fraud. Subsequent retraction of the paper required the actions of an independent whistleblower.[55]
The cases of
Consequences of scientific misconduct
Consequences for science
The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence. The Piltdown Man fraud is a case in point: The significance of the bona-fide fossils that were being found was muted for decades because they disagreed with Piltdown Man and the preconceived notions that those faked fossils supported. In addition, the prominent paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward spent time at Piltdown each year until he died, trying to find more Piltdown Man remains. The misdirection of resources kept others from taking the real fossils more seriously and delayed the reaching of a correct understanding of human evolution. (The Taung Child, which should have been the death knell for the view that the human brain evolved first, was instead treated very critically because of its disagreement with the Piltdown Man evidence.)
In the case of Prof Don Poldermans, the misconduct occurred in reports of trials of treatment to prevent death and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing operations.[60] The trial reports were relied upon to issue guidelines that applied for many years across North America and Europe.[61]
In the case of Dr Alfred Steinschneider, two decades and tens of millions of research dollars were lost trying to find the elusive link between infant sleep apnea, which Steinschneider said he had observed and recorded in his laboratory, and
Consequences for those who expose misconduct
The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect on the institutions that host or employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research. This means that a range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any evidence or suggestion of misconduct. Persons who expose such cases, commonly called
Regulatory Violations and Consequences (example)
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 50.5, Deliberate Misconduct of the
Violation of any of these rules can lead to severe penalties, including
Data issues
Exposure of fraudulent data
With the advancement of the internet, there are now several tools available to aid in the detection of
Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data include error analysis. Measurements generally have a small amount of error, and repeated measurements of the same item will generally result in slight differences in readings. These differences can be analyzed, and follow certain known mathematical and statistical properties. Should a set of data appear to be too faithful to the hypothesis, i.e., the amount of error that would normally be in such measurements does not appear, a conclusion can be drawn that the data may have been forged. Error analysis alone is typically not sufficient to prove that data have been falsified or fabricated, but it may provide the supporting evidence necessary to confirm suspicions of misconduct.
Data sharing
Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."[69]
Underreporting
The vast majority of cases of scientific misconduct may not be reported. The number of
Some notable cases
In 1998
The claims in Wakefield's paper were widely reported,
In 2011
In 2020 Sapan Desai and his coauthors published two papers, in the prestigious medical journals The Lancet and the The New England Journal of Medicine, early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The papers were based on a very large dataset published by Surgisphere, a company owned by Desai. The dataset was exposed as a fabrication, and the papers were soon retracted.[75][76]
Solutions
Changing research assessment
Since 2012, the
See also
- Academic dishonesty
- Archaeological forgery
- Bioethics
- Bullying in academia
- Committee on Publication Ethics
- Conflicts of interest in academic publishing
- Cyril Burt
- Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
- Data fabrication
- Engineering ethics
- Fabrication (science)
- Hippocratic Oath for scientists
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
- Japanese scientific misconduct allegations
- List of cognitive biases
- List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
- List of fallacies
- List of memory biases
- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
- Lysenkoism
- Mertonian norms
- Metascience
- Pathological science
- Politicization of science
- Reproducibility
- Research ethics
- Research integrity
- Research paper mill
- Retraction
- Scientific method
- Scientific plagiarism in India
- Scientific plagiarism in the United States
- Sham peer review
- Source criticism
- United States Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
- Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science
- EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles
- Straight and Crooked Thinking
- The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science
References
- S2CID 36326829.
- ^ "Coping with fraud" (PDF). The COPE Report 1999: 11–18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-28. Retrieved 2006-09-02.
It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock ... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet.
- ^ Xie, Yun (2008-08-12). "What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
- S2CID 206512870.
- ^ "Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases". Research Triangle Institute. 1995. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-08-24. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
- ISBN 978-93-90649-38-9.
- ^ Part III. Department of Health and Human Services Archived 2021-10-22 at the Wayback Machine
- JSTOR 40252116.
- PMID 19478950.
- ^ "New Research Misconduct Policies" (PDF). NSF. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-09-10. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
- ^ 45 CFR Part 689 [1] Archived 2008-10-23 at the Wayback Machine
- PMID 11653981.
- ^ Emmeche, slide 5
- ^ Garfield, Eugene (January 21, 2002). "Demand Citation Vigilance". The Scientist. 16 (2): 6. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
- ^ Emmeche, slide 3, who refers to the phenomenon as Dulbecco's law.
- ^ "Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals". The World Association of Medical Editors. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
- ^ "ICMJE – Home". www.icmje.org. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
- ^ "Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals". The World Association of Medical Editors. Archived from the original on 2009-07-31. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
- PMID 16131560.
- PMID 15238595.
- PMID 9112845.
- PMID 18092023.
- PMID 30698640.
- PMID 32007131.
- S2CID 241560050.
- PMID 34393593.
- ^ Brown, C. (2005) Overcoming Barriers to Use of Promising Research Among Elite Middle East Policy Groups, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, Select Press.
- New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-01.
- ^ )
- ^ 11jigen (2012-01-15). "Shigeaki Kato (the University of Tokyo): DNA demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression". Katolab-imagefraud.blogspot.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Ritchie, Stuart (2021-07-02). "Why Are Gamers So Much Better Than Scientists at Catching Fraud?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-07-19.
- ^ ISSN 0016-7061.
- ^ S2CID 18463459.
- ^ "Q&A: Parachute Science in Coral Reef Research". The Scientist Magazine®. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
- ^ a b c "The Problem With 'Parachute Science'". Science Friday. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
- ^ "Scientists Say It's Time To End 'Parachute Research'". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
- S2CID 21725769.
- S2CID 51630341.
- ^ "Helicopter Research". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
- ^ a b Vos, Asha de. "The Problem of 'Colonial Science'". Scientific American. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
- ^ "The Traces of Colonialism in Science". Observatory of Educational Innovation. Retrieved 2021-03-24.
- PMID 33621503.
- ^ Toy, Jennifer (2002). "The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77" (PDF). Science Editor. 25 (6): 195–198.
- ^ PMID 7787632. (registration required)
- ^ "Independent Committee of Inquiry into the publication of articles in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1994–1995)". Retrieved 2011-08-26.
- ^ a b "Journal editor quits in conflict scandal". The Scientist. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
- ^ "Actonel Case Media Reports - Scientific Misconduct Wiki". Archived from the original on 2009-02-02. Retrieved 2008-03-22.
- ^ Dickerson, John (2005-12-22). "Did a British university sell out to P&G?". Slate. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
- PMID 12446544.
- PMID 17568715.
- S2CID 4396687. and (with Joan Sieber) Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide, July 2010.
- ^ Rowe, Mary; Wilcox, Linda; Gadlin, Howard (2009). "Dealing with – or Reporting – 'Unacceptable' Behavior – with additional thoughts about the 'Bystander Effect'" (PDF). Journal of the International Ombudsman Association. 2 (1): 52–64.
- ^ Retraction Guidelines Archived 2020-03-26 at the Wayback Machine (PDF)
- PMID 16192589.
- RetractionWatch. 2012-06-13. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
- RetractionWatch. 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
- PMID 10735823.
- ^ Fujii Statement of Concern Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine (PDF)
- ^ Fujii Join EIC Statement Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine (PDF)
- PMID 24482457.
- S2CID 13845087.
- S2CID 8561269.
- ISBN 978-0553100136.
- S2CID 8561269.
- ^ "Déjà vu: Medline duplicate publication database". dejavu.vbi.vt.edu. Archived from the original on 2015-04-25. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
- ^ "Deja vu: Medline duplicate publication database". dejavu.vbi.vt.edu. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
- S2CID 4358525.
- S2CID 28467385.
- doi:10.1038/nature05007. Archived from the originalon 2012-09-12. Retrieved 2010-08-16.
- ^ Oransky, Ivan; Marcus, Adam (August 9, 2023). "There's far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit". The Guardian. Retrieved August 12, 2023.
- ^ "Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield: Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and Sanction" (PDF). General Medical Council. 24 May 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 August 2011. Retrieved 10 August 2011.
- ^ Goldacre, B. (30 August 2008). "The MMR hoax". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 30 August 2008.
- Science.
- ^ Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit (2013-04-26). "The Mind of a Con Man". The New York Times.
- PMID 32501665.
- PMID 32511943.
- ^ "Read the Declaration". DORA. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
Further reading
- Claus Emmeche. "An old and a recent example of scientific fraud" (PowerPoint). Retrieved 2007-05-18.
- Sam Kean (2021). The Icepick Surgeon: Murder, Fraud, Sabotage, Piracy, and Other Dastardly Deeds Perpetrated in the Name of Science. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0316496506.
- Patricia Keith-Spiegel, Joan Sieber, and Gerald P. Koocher (November, 2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide.
- Jargin SV. Misconduct in Medical Research and Practice. Nova Science Publishers, 2020. https://novapublishers.com/shop/misconduct-in-medical-research-and-practice/
External links
- Media related to Scientific misconduct at Wikimedia Commons
- Publication ethics checklist (PDF) (for routine use during manuscript submission to a scientific journal)