World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Scientific misconduct

Article Id: WHEBN0000029537
Reproduction Date:

Title: Scientific misconduct  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles, Fringe science, Scientific plagiarism in the United States, Scientific plagiarism in India, Betrayers of the Truth
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Scientific misconduct

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific 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 both perpetrators[3][4] and any individual who exposes it.[5] In addition there are public health implications attached to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on dubious research findings.

Motivation to commit scientific misconduct

According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here.[6]

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 noise, 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 no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.[7]

Forms of scientific misconduct

The U.S. National Science Foundation defines three types of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.[8][9]

  • Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them. This is sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".[10] A more minor form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, and/or do not support the argument.[11]
  • 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".[12] Arguably, this is the most common type of scientific misconduct. Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether authors intentionally ignored a highly relevant cite or lacked knowledge of the prior work. Discovery credit can also be inadvertently reassigned from the original discoverer to a better-known researcher. This is a special case of the Matthew effect.[13]
    • 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). Recent papers from the University of Cordoba have come to light showing how this can go undetected and unchallenged for years.[14][15]
    • Self-plagiarism – or multiple publication of the same content with different titles and/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 (MJE). According to some MJE this includes publishing the same article in a different language.[16]

Other types of research misconduct are also recognized:

  • The violation of ethical standards regarding human and animal experiments – such as the standard that a human subject of the experiment must give informed consent to the experiment.[17] Failure to obtain ethical approval for clinical studies characterised the case of Joachim Boldt.
  • Ghostwriting – the phenomenon where someone other than the named author(s) makes a major contribution. Typically, this is done to mask contributions from drug companies. It incorporates plagiarism and has an additional element of financial fraud.
  • Conversely, research misconduct is not limited to NOT listing authorship, but also includes the conferring authorship on those that have not made substantial contributions to the research.[18][19] This is done by senior researchers who muscle their way onto the papers of inexperienced junior researchers[20] 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".[21][22][23]

In addition, some academics consider suppression—the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)—to be a form of misconduct as well.

  • Bare assertions – making entirely unsubstantiated claims - may also be considered a form of research misconduct although there is no evidence that cases of this form have ever led to a finding of misconduct.

In some cases, scientific misconduct may also constitute violations of the law, but not always. Being accused of the activities described in this article is a serious matter for a practicing scientist, with severe consequences should it be determined that a researcher intentionally or carelessly engaged in misconduct. However in most countries, committing research misconduct, even on a large scale, is not a legal offence.

Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity, indicate some form of scientific misconduct.[24] However the ORI will only investigate allegations of impropriety where research was funded by federal grants. They routinely monitor such research publication for red flags. Other private organizations like the Committee of Medical Journal Editors (COJE) can only police their own members.

The validity of the methods and results of scientific papers are often scrutinized in journal clubs. In this venue, members can decide amongst themselves with the help of peers if a scientific paper's ethical standards are met.

Responsibility of authors and of coauthors

Authors and coauthors of scientific publications have a variety of responsibilities. Contravention of the rules of scientific authorship may lead to a charge of scientific misconduct. All authors, including coauthors, 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 New England Journal of Medicine 1967-1977, Franz Ingelfinger.[25]

Guest authorship (where there is stated authorship in the absence of involvement, also known as gift authorship) and ghost authorship (where the real author is not listed as an author) are commonly regarded as forms of research misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case of Gerald Schatten who co-authored with Hwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by Malcolm Pearce,[26] (Chamberlain was exonerated from collusion in Pearce's deception)[27] - and the coauthors with Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff,[28] then the editor-in-chief of Neuropsychopharmacology, and a well-documented case[29] involving the drug Actonel.

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 (Nemeroff,[28] Blumsohn).[30]

Responsibilities of research institutions

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'[31] but the college took no action, such as retracting relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring. It was only 10 years later, when an entirely separate form of misconduct by the same individual was being investigated by the General Medical Council, that the internal report came to light.

In a more recent case[32] an internal investigation at the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune determined that there was evidence of misconduct by Dr. Journal of Biological Chemistry) withdrew the paper based on its own analysis.

Responsibilities of scientific colleagues who are "bystanders"

Some academics believe that scientific colleagues who suspect scientific misconduct should consider taking informal action themselves, or reporting their concerns.[33] 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 [34]

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[35] 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).

Recent evidence has emerged 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.[15] In another case,[36] 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.[37]

The recent cases of Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii[38] in anaesthesiology have focussed attention on the role that journals play in perpetuating scientific fraud as well as how they can deal with it. In the Boldt case, the Editors-in-Chief of 18 specialist journals (generally anaesthesia and intensive care) made a joint statement regarding 88 published clinical trials conducted without Ethics Committee approval. In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200 papers, the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, which published 24 of Fujii's papers, has accepted that its handling of the issue was inadequate. Following publication of a Letter to the Editor from Kranke and colleagues in April 2000,[39] along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no follow-up on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an institutional review of Dr. Fujii's research. Anesthesia & Analgesia went on to publish 11 additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following the 2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating[40] in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the Journal by Dr. Fujii should not have been published without first vetting the allegations of fraud. In April 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint statement,[41] in the form of an ultimatum made available to the public, to a large number of academic institutions where Fujii had been employed, offering these institutions the chance to attest to the integrity of the bulk of the allegedly fraudulent papers.

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 photo manipulation in papers that were being considered for publication.[42] This was in response to the increased usage of programs by scientists such as Adobe Photoshop, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then more publishers, including the Nature Publishing Group, have instituted similar tests and require authors to minimize and specify the extent of photo manipulation when a manuscript is submitted for publication. However there is little evidence to indicate that such tests are applied rigorously. One Nature paper published in 2009[36] has subsequently been reported to contain around 20 separate instances[43] of image fraud.

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:

  • 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

Suppression/non-publication of data

A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, failure to publish, or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. Such cases may not be strictly definable as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of results is not present. However, in such cases the intent may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher. Examples include the failure to publish studies if they demonstrate the harm of a new drug, or truthfully publishing the benefits of a treatment while omitting harmful side-effects.

This is distinguishable from other concepts such as bad science, junk science or pseudoscience where the criticism centres on the methodology or underlying assumptions. It may be possible in some cases to use statistical methods to show that the datasets offered in relation to a given field are incomplete. However this may simply reflect the existence of real-world restrictions on researchers without justifying more sinister conclusions.

Some cases go beyond the failure to publish complete reports of all findings with researchers knowingly making false claims based on falsified data. This falls clearly under the definition of scientific misconduct, even if the result was achieved by suppressing data.

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.[44] The trial reports were relied upon to issue guidelines that applied for many years across North America and Europe.[45]

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 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), of which he stated it was a precursor. The cover was blown in 1994, 22 years after Steinschneider's 1972 Pediatrics paper claiming such an association,[46] when Waneta Hoyt, the mother of the patients in the paper, was arrested, indicted and convicted on 5 counts of second-degree murder for the smothering deaths of her five children.[47] While that in itself was bad enough, the paper, presumably written as an attempt to save infants' lives, ironically was ultimately used as a defense by parents suspected in multiple deaths of their own children in cases of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. The 1972 Pediatrics paper was cited in 404 papers in the interim and is still listed on Pubmed without comment.[48]

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 whistleblowers, can find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means.[26] These negative consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven the development of whistle blowers charters - designed to protect those who raise concerns. A whistleblower is almost always alone in their fight - their career becomes completely dependent on the decision about alleged misconduct.[49] If the accusations prove false, their career is completely destroyed, but even in case of positive decision the career of the whistleblower can be under question: their reputation of "troublemaker" will prevent many employers from hiring them. There is no international body where a whistleblower could give their concerns. If a university fails to investigate suspected fraud or provides a fake investigation to save their reputation the whistleblower has no right of appeal.

Exposure of fraudulent data

With the advancement of the internet, there are now several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publication within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner's laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà vu,[50] an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication. All of the entries in the database were discovered through the use of text data mining algorithm eTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner's laboratory. The creation of Déjà vu[51] and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained therein have ignited much discussion in the scientific community concerning issues such as ethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual copyright. Studies on this database have been published in journals such as Nature and Science, among others.[52][53]

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."[54]

Individual cases

Research conducted during employment by an institution or a corporation


  • H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at [55][56]



Great Britain


Alexander Spivak, a tenured senior lecturer at Holon Institute of Technology (HIT), plagiarized [70] a paper [71] written in 2001 by his former postdoctoral adviser and two other researchers from Tel Aviv University. Two chapters of their original paper were copied-and-pasted and published, as two separate articles, in the International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (IJPAM) seven years later. After the plagiarism was discovered in 2014, both papers were retracted [72][73] by the IJPAM Managing Editor. The HIT administration's handling of the plagiarism affair received some public criticism [74] as the academic dishonesty of Dr. Spivak has not been openly denounced by the HIT officials and the plagiator was even awarded a sabbatical leave (which is not a vested right of the faculty in Israeli colleges).



  • Mart Bax (anthropology) – Various kinds of serious scientific misconduct. For example, in two cases Bax stated to have relied on one single local informant who told him improbable stories about public events that were not confirmed by anyone else. Bax did not check the stories and wrote them down in detail as if these they were historical facts. The commission that investigated Bax' research was unable to interview these two informants, so data fabrication by Bax could not be proven.[83][84][85][86]
  • Diederik Stapel (social psychology) – fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human behaviour.[87] Stapel committed scientific fraud in at least 55 of his papers, as well as in 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students. Accordng to the New York Times, Stapel "perpetrated an audacious academic fraud by making up studies that told the world what it wanted to hear about human nature."[88]


  • A researcher employed by a Norwegian hospital (Stavanger universitetssjukehus) analyzed samples of spinal fluid from patients, after the researcher had added a substance to the sample.[89]
  • Jon Sudbø fabricated data for a study that reported "nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced the risk of oral cancer".[90]


  • Dănuț Marcu, a Romanian mathematician and computer scientist, who was banned from several journals due to plagiarism. He had submitted a manuscript which was more-or-less word for word the same as a paper written by another author.
  • Ioan Mang, a computer scientist at the University of Oradea, plagiarized a paper by cryptographer Eli Biham,[91] Dean of the Computer Science Department of Technion, Haifa, Israel. He was accused of extensive plagiarism in at least eight of his academic papers.[92][93][94][95]

Saudi Arabia

  • Hazem Ali Attia, an Egyptian professor in the Department of Mathematics of Al-Qasseem University had a 2007 paper retracted from the MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN THE APPLIED SCIENCES journal, for being a near identical copy of an earlier paper published in the International Journal of Thermal Science.[96]

South Africa

South Korea



United States

Non-institutional and non-corporate research

See also



  1. ^ Nylenna, M.; Andersen, D.; Dahlquist, G.; Sarvas, M.; Aakvaag, A. (1999). "Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries". Lancet 354 (9172): 57–61.  
  2. ^ "Coping with fraud" (PDF). The COPE Report 1999: 11–18. Archived from the original 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. 
  3. ^ Xie, Yun (2008-08-12). "What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?". Ars Technica.  
  4. ^ Redman and Berz. "Scientific Misconduct: Do the Punishments Fit the Crime?" (PDF) 321. Sciencemag. 
  5. ^ "Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases" (PDF). Research Triangle Institute. 1995. 
  6. ^ Goodstein, David (January–February 2002). "Scientific misconduct". Academe ( 
  7. ^ Fanelli, D. (2009). Tregenza, Tom, ed. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data". PLoS ONE 4 (5): e5738.  
  8. ^ "New Research Misconduct Policies, NSF" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  9. ^ 45 CFR Part 689 [1]
  10. ^ Shapiro, M.F. (1992). "Data audit by a regulatory agency: Its effect and implication for others" (PDF). Accountability in Research 2 (3): 219–229.  
  11. ^ Emmeche, slide 5
  12. ^ Eugene Garfield (January 21, 2002). "Demand Citation Vigilance". The Scientist 16(2):6. Retrieved 2009-07-30. 
  13. ^ Emmeche, slide 3, who refers to the phenonemon as Dulbecco's law.
  14. ^ Roman-Gomez, J.; Jimenez-Velasco, A.; Castillejo, J. A.; Agirre, X.; Barrios, M.; Navarro, G.; Molina, F. J.; Calasanz, M. J.; Prosper, F.; Heiniger, A.; Torres, A. (2004). "Promoter hypermethylation of cancer-related genes: A strong independent prognostic factor in acute lymphoblastic leukemia". Blood 104 (8): 2492–2498.  
  15. ^ a b Roman-Gomez, J.; Jimenez-Velasco, A.; Agirre, X.; Prosper, F.; Heiniger, A.; Torres, A. (2005). "Lack of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype Defines a Clinical Subtype of T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Associated with Good Prognosis". Journal of Clinical Oncology 23 (28): 7043–7049.  
  16. ^ "Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals — The World Association of Medical Editors". Retrieved 2009-07-30. 
  17. ^ "Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals — The World Association of Medical Editors". Retrieved 2009-07-30. 
  18. ^
  19. ^ "Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals — The World Association of Medical Editors". Retrieved 2009-07-30. 
  20. ^ Kwok, L. S. (2005). "The White Bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism". Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (9): 554–556.  
  21. ^ Bates, T.; Anić, A.; Marusić, M.; Marusić, A. (2004). "Authorship Criteria and Disclosure of Contributions: Comparison of 3 General Medical Journals with Different Author Contribution Forms". JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 292 (1): 86–88.  
  22. ^ Bhopal, R.; Rankin, J.; McColl, E.; Thomas, L.; Kaner, E.; Stacy, R.; Pearson, P.; Vernon, B.; Rodgers, H. (1997). "The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty". BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 314 (7086): 1009–1012.  
  23. ^ Wager, E. (2007). "Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship?". MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine 9 (3): 16.  
  24. ^ Wired Magazine, March 2004
  25. ^ [2]
  26. ^ a b c "Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud".   ()
  27. ^ "Independent Committee of Inquiry into the publication of articles in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1994-1995)". Retrieved 2011-08-26. 
  28. ^ a b
  29. ^
  30. ^ Dickerson, John. "Did a British university sell out to P&G? - Slate Magazine". Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  31. ^ Wilmshurst P. "Institutional corruption in medicine (2002)". British Medical Journal 325: 1232–5.  
  32. ^ Jayaraman, K. S. (June 14, 2007). "Indian scientists battle journal retraction". Nature 447 (7146). 
  33. ^ See Gerald Koocher and Patricia Keith Speigel in NATURE Vol 466 22 July 2010: Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud, and (with Joan Sieber) Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide, July 2010.
  34. ^ See Mary Rowe, Linda Wilcox and Howard Gadlin, Dealing with—or Reporting—"Unacceptable" Behavior—with additional thoughts about the "Bystander Effect," in JIOA, vol.2, no.1, pp52–62.
  35. ^
  36. ^ a b Kim, M. S.; Kondo, T.; Takada, I.; Youn, M. Y.; Yamamoto, Y.; Takahashi, S.; Matsumoto, T.; Fujiyama, S.; Shirode, Y.; Yamaoka, I.; Kitagawa, H.; Takeyama, K. I.; Shibuya, H.; Ohtake, F.; Kato, S. (2009). "DNA demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression". Nature 461 (7266): 1007–1012.  
  37. ^ "Shikeagi Kato, who resigned post in March, retracts Nature paper | Retraction Watch". Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  38. ^ "Major fraud probe of Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii may challenge retraction record | Retraction Watch". Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  39. ^ Kranke, P.; Apfel, C. C.; Roewer, N.; Fujii, Y. (2000). "Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. Are incredibly nice!". Anesthesia and analgesia 90 (4): 1004–1007.  
  40. ^
  41. ^
  42. ^  
  43. ^ 11jigen (2012-01-15). "Shigeaki Kato (the University of Tokyo): DNA demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression". Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  44. ^ Vogel, G. (30 January 2014). "Suspect Drug Research Blamed for Massive Death Toll". Science 343 (6170): 473–474.  
  45. ^ Cole, G. D.; Francis, D. P. (29 August 2014). "Perioperative beta blockade: guidelines do not reflect the problems with the evidence from the DECREASE trials". BMJ 349 (aug29 8): g5210–g5210.  
  46. ^ a b Steinschneider A (October 1972). "Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndrome: clinical and laboratory observations".  
  47. ^ a b Talan, Jamie; Firstman, Richard (1997). The death of innocents. New York: Bantam Books.  
  48. ^ "Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndr... [Pediatrics. 1972] - PubMed - NCBI". 2013-03-25. Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  49. ^ Wilmshurst, Peter. "Dishonesty in Medical Research". 
  50. ^ "Déjà vu: Medline duplicate publication database". Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  51. ^ "Deja vu: Medline duplicate publication database". Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  52. ^ Errami M, Garner HR (2008-01-23). "A tale of two citations".  
  53. ^ Long TC, Errami M, George AC, Sun Z, Garner HR (2009-03-06). "SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY: Responding to Possible Plagiarism".  
  54. ^ Ethics: Increasing accountability Nature (2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05007
  55. ^ William T. A. Harrison, a Jim Simpsonb and Matthias Weilc (January 2010). "Editorial". Acta Crystallographica Section E 66: e1–e2.  
  56. ^ Doreen Walton (8 January 2010). Lancet urges China to tackle scientific fraud. BBC. 
  57. ^ "UniversityPost | Independent university journalism". Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  58. ^ Fraud investigation rocks Danish university, from Nature.
  59. ^ Milena Penkowa in Danish-language WorldHeritage
  60. ^ Heidi Blake, Holly Watt and Robert Winnett. "Millions of surgery patients at risk in drug research fraud scandal". The Telegraph, 03 Mar 2011 (retrieved 2011-03-03)
  61. ^ Marcus, Adam. "Bulfone-Paus retraction count grows to 13 with one in Transplantation". Retraction Watch. Retraction Watch. Retrieved 17 January 2012. 
  62. ^ "Scandal Rocks Scientific Community".  
  63. ^
  64. ^ Cook, N. "Breathe easy?" RoSPA Occupational Safety Health J., November 2011, pp. 9-13.
  65. ^ Learmount, D. "Cabin-air research seems to reverse no-risk conclusion" Flight International, 15–21 November 2011, p. 16.
  66. ^ Ramsden, J.J. (2011), "The scientific adequacy of the present state of knowledge concerning neurotoxins in aircraft cabin air", J. Biol. Phys. Chem. 11: 152–164,  
  67. ^ Jo Revill (2006-01-15). "Doctor in drug research row quits NHS post". London: Observer. Retrieved 2009-09-08. 
  68. ^ Phil Baty (2006-01-06). "Drugs trial row scientist resigns".  
  69. ^ "Actonel Case Media Reports - Scientific Misconduct Wiki". 2011-07-07. Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  70. ^ Ferguson, Cat. "Blatant plagiarism sinks paper (and earns a sabbatical!) for mathematician". Retraction Watch. 
  71. ^ B. Nadler, T. Naeh, and Z. Schuss. "The Stationary Arrival Process of Independent Diffusers from a Continuum to an Absorbing Boundary Is Poissonian". SIAM J. Appl. Math. 62: 433–447.  
  72. ^ A. Spivak (2008). "The Steady State Absorption Stream at an Absorbing Boundary". International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 44: 327–333. 
  73. ^ A. Spivak (2008). "The Probabilistic Characterization of the Arrival Process of Particles into an Absorbing Boundary". International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 48: 73–79. 
  74. ^ Tali Heruti-Sover (2014-09-03). "Lies of Educators".  
  75. ^ University of Tsukuba (2007-11-27). "Investigation Report on the Suspected Scientific Misconduct". Retrieved 2010-05-05. Hiroshi Mizubayashi. "University of Tsukuba defends professor's dismissal". Physics Today.  
  76. ^ Normile, Dennis (2 July 2012), "A New Record for Retractions?", Science Insider (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 
  77. ^ S. Shafer (2012). "Statement of Concern". 
  78. ^ D. Normile. "Scientific Misconduct. Japan's Universities Take Action". Science Magazine.  
  79. ^ Open copy of previous Science news article, accessed 8/24/2013
  80. ^ "Further accusations rock Japanese RNA laboratory". Nature 440 (7085): 720–721. 2006.  
  81. ^ Open copy of Nature news article of 6 April 2006, accessed 8/24/13
  82. ^ "Access : Doubts over biochemist's data expose holes in Japanese fraud laws".  
  83. ^ Baud, Michiel, Legêne, Susan, and Pels, Peter Circumventing Reality: Report on the Anthropological Work of Professor Emeritus M.M.G. Bax by , Amsterdam, 9 September 2013, commissioned and endorsed by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, official English language version of the final report
  84. ^ College van Bestuur VU onderschrijft conclusies onderzoekscommissie Baud press release by the VU 23-09-2013 Board of trustees VU endorses conclusions research committee Baud
    Dutch original:"Het College van Bestuur van de VU is van mening dat de commissie Baud uiterst zorgvuldig en grondig te werk is gegaan en langs navolgbare en logische lijnen haar conclusies heeft getrokken. Het College van Bestuur van de VU heeft met treurnis kennis genomen van de inhoud van het rapport, waarvan ze de conclusie, dat professor Bax zich schuldig heeft gemaakt aan wetenschappelijk wangedrag en fraude in de universitaire verslaggeving, onderschrijft."
    English translation:"The Board of trustees of the VU has the opinion that the Baud committee worked very accurately and thoroughly and came to its conclusions imitably and logically. The board of trustees was saddened by the contents of the reports of which they endorse the conlusion that Bax has committed scientific misconduct and fraud in the accounting of university related data."
  85. ^ VU gaat internationaal waarschuwen voor Bax by Richard de Boer, De Volkskrant 25-09-2013, VU will warn internationally against Bax
    Dutch original: "De vertaling moet uitgeverijen en redacties waarschuwen voor publicaties van Bax die de toets van de wetenschappelijke integriteitskritiek niet kunnen doorstaan."
    English translation: "The translation should warn publishing housings and editors against publications by Bax that fail the test of scientific integrity. "
  86. ^ Oud-hoogleraar Mart Bax fraudeerde op grote schaal NRC Handelsblad 23-09-2013, Former professor Mart Bax committed large scale fraud
    Dutch original:"Oud-hoogleraar politieke antropologie Mart Bax van de Vrije Universiteit heeft verzonnen onderzoeksresultaten gepubliceerd,…"
    English translation:"Former professor Mart Bax in political anthropology of the Free University has published invented research results,..."
  87. ^ Gretchen Vogel (31 October 2011). "Dutch 'Lord of the Data' Forged Dozens of Studies".  
  88. ^ The Mind of a Con Man: Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist, perpetrated an audacious academic fraud by making up studies that told the world what it wanted to hear about human nature., NY Times, published April 26, 2013.
  89. ^ "Etter press innrømmet forskeren tidlig i vår at han hadde tilsatt et stoff i ryggmargsvæsken for å oppnå resultater som ville vekke oppsikt og sikre hans posisjon som forsker". Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  90. ^ Altman, Lawrence K. (2006-05-02). "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap". The New York Times. 
  91. ^ "Plagiarism". 2012-05-10. Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  92. ^ Romanian scientists fight plagiarism Nature magazine
  93. ^ Attitudes towards plagiarism ScienceIn
  94. ^ Romanian Prime Minister Accused of Plagiarism Live Science
  95. ^ Romanian Education and Research Minister Accused of Plagiarism iThenticate
  96. ^
  97. ^ Weiss RB, Rifkin RM, Stewart FM, Theriault RL, Williams LA, Herman AA, Beveridge RA. (2000-03-18). "High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: an on-site review of the Bezwoda study". The Lancet 355 (9208): 999–1003.  
  98. ^ a b Altman, Larry (May 2, 2006). "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-26. Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system. The system is based on journals inviting independent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated aim is to weed out sloppy and bad research, ensuring the integrity of the what it has published. 
  99. ^ Rivera, Alicia (May 20, 2011). "Ciencia china 'duplicada' en Galicia". El País. Ingendaay, Paul (June 15, 2011). "War die Guttenberg-Affäre denn zu gar nichts gut?". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 
  100. ^ "Addition/Correction: Prediction of Refractive Index of Polymers Using Artificial Neural Networks". Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 56 (3): 688. 2010-02-09.  
  101. ^ "RETRACTION: Román-Gómez J, Cordeu L, Agirre X, Jiménez-Velasco A, San José-Eneriz E, Garate L, Calasanz MJ, Heiniger A, Torres A, Prosper F. Epigenetic regulation of Wnt-signaling pathway in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2007;109(8):3462-3469". 2012-08-16. Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  102. ^ "Roman-Gomez J, Jiminez-Velasco A, Castillejo JA, Agirre X, Barrios M, Navarro G, Molina FJ, Calasanz MJ, Prosper F, Heiniger A, Torres A. Promoter hypermethylation of cancer-related genes: a strong independent prognostic factor in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2004;104:2492-2498". 2009-03-05. Retrieved 2013-08-04. 
  103. ^ "Offenders". Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  104. ^ Stewart WW, Feder N (1987). "The integrity of the scientific literature". Nature 325 (6101): 207–14.  
  105. ^ UConn Investigation Finds That Health Researcher Fabricated Data (The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 11, 2012)
  106. ^ Harvard Dean Confirms Misconduct in Hauser Investigation, Science, August 20, 2010
  107. ^ ORI - The Office of Research Integrity. "Case Summaries | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity". Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  108. ^ [3]
  109. ^ "Grad student falsified data", The Scientist, 5 August 2008.
  110. ^ Cook, Janine Denis. "Good Laboratory Practice versus CLIA". University of Maryland, Baltimore. Retrieved 2012-07-12. 
  111. ^ Schneider, Keith (1983-05-11). "IBT Labs' trial reveals faked data". In These Times. pp. 3, 6. Retrieved 2012-07-16. 
  112. ^ Ex-UAB researcher's work may be fake (The Birmingham News) December 08, 2009
  113. ^ At Lawrence Berkeley, Physicists Say a Colleague Took Them for a Ride George Johnson, The New York Times, 15 October 2002
  114. ^ Markta, Tom. "Ohio University Plagiarism". Retrieved May 1, 2014. 
  115. ^ Tomsho, Robert (Aug 15, 2006). "Student Plagiarism Stirs Controversy At Ohio University". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 1, 2014. 
  116. ^ Koeninger, Kevin (August 26, 2010). "AProfessor Says Another Prof Plagiarized". Courthouse News. Retrieved May 1, 2014. 
  117. ^ Pyle, Encarnacion (September 15, 2010). "Plagiarism a persistent problem on campuses". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved May 1, 2014. 
  118. ^ "Near-Closure of a University Chemist Plagiarism Case". ScienceWeek. 1998-03-20. Retrieved 2009-09-08. [The NSF and Paquette] have apparently agreed to a legally binding settlement, in which Paquette excludes himself from receiving any federal funding for the next 2 years, while NSF agrees not to issue a finding of scientific misconduct. ... The university's chemistry department, however, considers the plagiarism charge insignificant, saying that Paquette's actions "could be considered sloppy, but do not constitute plagiarism by most definitions." 
  119. ^ "Office of Research Integrity Newsletter" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-07-30. 
  120. ^ Jeneen Interlandi (2006-10-22). "An Unwelcome Discovery".  
  121. ^ "Tenth Potti retraction appears, in Clinical Cancer Research | Retraction Watch". Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  122. ^ "Top Pain Scientist Fabricated Data in Studies, Hospital Says", Wall Street Journal, 11 March 2009.
  123. ^ "Nih Guide: Findings Of Scientific Misconduct".  
  124. ^ Bridget Murray (February 2002). "Research fraud needn't happen at all". Monitor on Psychology ( 
  125. ^ "\Jacobson, Jennifer. "A Psychology Professor Resigns Amid Accusations of Research Fraud at". 2001-08-10. Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  126. ^ Linda B. Blackford (2012-11-26). "University of Kentucky researcher accused of falsifying data for a decade".  
  127. ^ "Findings of Research Misconduct".  
  128. ^ Hick JF (July 1973). "Letter to editor: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Child Abuse".  
  129. ^ Steinschneider A (June 1994). "Erratum? Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndrome: clinical and laboratory observations".  
  130. ^ Lucey JF (June 1994). "Woman Confesses in Deaths of Children".  
  131. ^ "Nih Guide: Findings Of Scientific Misconduct". Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  132. ^ Pravda, Douglas M. "NIH Cites Two Researchers For Misconduct | The Harvard Crimson". Retrieved 2013-03-01. 
  133. ^ Reich, Eugenie. "Biologist spared jail for grant fraud". Nature.  
  134. ^ "Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield: Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and Sanction" (PDF). General Medical Council. 24 May 2010. Retrieved 10 August 2011. 


External links

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE )
  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
  • Publication ethics checklist (for routine use during manuscript submission to a scientific journal)
  • Scientists exposed as sloppy reporters
  • Accountability in Research (journal)
  • The Mind of a Con Man: Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist, perpetrated an audacious academic fraud by making up studies that told the world what it wanted to hear about human nature., NY Times, published April 26, 2013
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.