Abstract
Much published science, especially biomedical science, is not reproducible.
While most of this is likely due to sloppy research practices, part of it is due to deliberate falsification or fabrication of data, i.e., research misconduct. Plagiarism is also a form of misconduct, and although it might not cause errors to enter the literature, it undermines trust, creates inefficiencies, and deters honest researchers from careers in science. While a growing number of papers are being retracted, and the biggest reason for retractions is misconduct, it is not clear whether there is an increase in the incidence of misconduct, an increase in awareness, or both. Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, publishers, and institutions all have responsibilities in detecting and managing misconduct and correcting the literature. To improve the situation, the incentives to fabricate need to be reduced, and rewards for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, publishers, and institutions who do the right thing should be increased. Every country needs to establish research integrity bodies to provide advice and oversight, collect data, and improve codes of practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
(1989). On being a scientist. Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 86(23), 9053–9074.
(2003). Retractions’ realities. Nature, 422(6927), 1.
Begley, C. G. (2013). Six red flags for suspect work. Nature, 497(7450), 433–434. doi:10.1038/497433a.
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a.
Couzin, J. (2006). Scientific publishing. Don’t pretty up that picture just yet. Science, 314(5807), 1866–1868.
Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., & Drazen, J. M. (2005). Expression of concern: Bombardier et al., “Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis”. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1520–1528; 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine, 353(26), 2813–2814. Epub 2005 Dec 2818.
Doody, R. S., Gavrilova, S. I., Sano, M., Thomas, R. G., Aisen, P. S., Bachurin, S. O., & Hung, D. (2008). Effect of dimebon on cognition, activities of daily living, behaviour, and global function in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Lancet, 372(9634), 207–215. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(1008)61074-61070.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One, 4(5), e5738. 5710.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033. doi:10.11073/pnas.1212247109. Epub 1212242012 Oct 1212247101.
Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515(7528), 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.
Horton, R. (2004). Vioxx, the implosion of Merck, and aftershocks at the FDA. Lancet, 364(9450), 1995–1996.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 30.
Kapoor, A., Yao, W., Ying, H., Hua, S., Liewen, A., Wang, Q., DePinho, R. A. (2014). Yap1 activation enables bypass of oncogenic Kras addiction in pancreatic cancer. Cell, 158(1), 185–197.
Kennedy, D. (2006). Editorial retraction. Science, 311(5759), 335. Epub 2006 Jan 2012.
Knox, R. A. (1983). Deeper problems for Darsee: Emory probe. JAMA, 249(21), 2867.
Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(7), 877–882. doi:10.1097/ACM.1090b1013e318257ee318256a.
Lawrence, P. A. (2002). Rank injustice. Nature, 415(6874), 835–836.
Marris, E., & Check, E. (2006). Disgraced cloner’s ally is cleared of misconduct. Nature, 439(7078), 768–769.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10(9), 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1031.
Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, 299(15), 1800–1812. doi:10.1001/jama.1299.1815.1800.
Rossner, M. (2006). How to guard against image fraud. The Scientist, 20, 24–24.
Rossner, M., & Yamada, K. M. (2004). What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. Journal of Cell Biology, 166(1), 11–15.
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PloS One, 8(7), e68397. doi:10.61371/journal.pone.0068397. Print 0062013.
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. doi:10.7554/eLife.02956.
Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology. Cell Physiology, 295(3), C567–C575. doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00208.02008.
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28. doi:10.1038/478026a.
Vaux, D. L. (2004). Error message. Nature, 428(6985), 799.
Vaux, D. L. (2008). Sorting the good from the bad and the ugly. The Biochemist, 30, 8–10.
Vaux, D. L. (2011). A biased comment on double-blind review. British Journal of Dermatology, 165(3), 454. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10546.x.
Wager, E., & Kleiert, S. on behalf of COPE Council. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). www.publicationethics.org.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Ivan Oransky for constructive comments and the NHMRC (Grants 1016701 and 1020136) for funding. This work was made possible through Victorian State Government Operational Infrastructure Support and Australian Government NHMRC Independent Research Institute Infrastructure Support Scheme (IRIISS) Grant 361646.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this entry
Cite this entry
Vaux, D.L. (2016). Scientific Misconduct: Falsification, Fabrication, and Misappropriation of Credit. In: Bretag, T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-097-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-098-8
eBook Packages: EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education