1932

Abstract

Scientific misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of science. The US government began to take systematic interest in such misconduct in the 1980s. Since then, a number of studies have examined how frequently individual scientists have observed scientific misconduct or were involved in it. Although the studies vary considerably in their methodology and in the nature and size of their samples, in most studies at least 10% of the scientists sampled reported having observed scientific misconduct. In addition to studies of the incidence of scientific misconduct, this review considers the recent increase in paper retractions, the role of social media in scientific ethics, several instructional examples of egregious scientific misconduct, and potential methods to reduce research misconduct.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437
2016-01-04
2024-07-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/67/1/annurev-psych-122414-033437.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alford CF. 2002. Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman LK. 1980. Columbia's medical chief resigns; ex associate's data fraud at issue. New York Times Aug. 9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antes AL, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Brown RP. et al. 2009. A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics Behav. 19:379–402 [Google Scholar]
  4. Babbage C. 1970 (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England New York: Kelley [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhattacharjee Y. 2013. The mind of a con man. New York Times Magazine April 26 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boffey P. 1986. Major study points to faulty research at two universities. New York Times April 22 [Google Scholar]
  7. Braunwald E. 1987. On analyzing scientific fraud. Nature 325:215–16 [Google Scholar]
  8. Braunwald E. 1992. Cardiology: the John Darsee experience. Research Fraud in the Behavioral and Biomedical Sciences DJ Miller, M Henson 55–79 New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  9. Broad WJ. 1980a. Imbroglio at Yale (I): emergence of a fraud. Science 210:446538–41 [Google Scholar]
  10. Broad WJ. 1980b. Imbroglio at Yale (II): a top job lost. Science 210:4466171–73 [Google Scholar]
  11. Broad WJ. 1982a. Harvard delay in reporting fraud. Science 215:478–82 [Google Scholar]
  12. Broad WJ. 1982b. Report absolves Harvard in case of fakery. Science 215:874–76 [Google Scholar]
  13. Broad WJ. 1983a. Fraud in science taints the high and mighty. New York Times March 20 [Google Scholar]
  14. Broad WJ. 1983b. Notorious Darsee case shakes assumptions about science. New York Times June 14 [Google Scholar]
  15. Broad WJ, Wade N. 1982. Betrayers of the Truth New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
  16. Broadus RN. 1983. An investigation of the validity of bibliographic citations. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 34:132–35 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brookes PS. 2014. Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action. Peer J. 2:e313 [Google Scholar]
  18. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR. 1998. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 280:296–97 [Google Scholar]
  19. Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. 2014. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J. 28:3847–55 [Google Scholar]
  20. Clearbout J, Karrenbach M. 1992. Electronic Documents Give Reproducible Research a New Meaning Stanford, CA: Stanford Explor. Proj http://sepwww.stanford.edu/doku.php?id=sep:research:reproducible:seg92 [Google Scholar]
  21. Couzin J. 2006. Truth and consequences. Science 313:1222–26 [Google Scholar]
  22. Culliton BJ. 1983a. Fraud inquiry spreads blame. Science 219:937 [Google Scholar]
  23. Culliton BJ. 1983b. Coping with fraud: the Darsee case. Science 220:31–35 [Google Scholar]
  24. Culliton BJ. 1983c. NIH to review Emory in Darsee case. Science 220:1029 [Google Scholar]
  25. D'Angelo J. 2012. Ethics in Science Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press [Google Scholar]
  26. Dalton R. 2005. Obesity expert owns up to million-dollar crime. Nature 434:424 [Google Scholar]
  27. Eastwood S, Derish P, Leash E, Ordway S. 1996. Ethical issues in biomedical research: perception and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2:89–114 [Google Scholar]
  28. Eisley L. 1979. Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X. New York: Dutton [Google Scholar]
  29. Fanelli D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE 4:e5738 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fanelli D. 2013. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLOS Med. 10:e1001563 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109:17028–33 [Google Scholar]
  32. Feder N. 2008. Ethical Problems at NIH—The Struggle Continues Washington, DC: Proj. Gov. Overs http://www.pogo.org/about/press-room/releases/2008/ph-iis-20081024.html [Google Scholar]
  33. Feder N. 2012. Project on Government Oversight Washington, DC: Proj. Gov. Overs http://www.pogo.org/about/board-staff/staff-profiles/ned-feder.html [Google Scholar]
  34. Franklin A, Edwards AWF, Fairbanks DJ, Hartl DL, Seidenfeld T. 2008. . Ending the Mendel-Fisher Controversy. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press [Google Scholar]
  35. Goodstein DL. 2010. On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. 2012. A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLOS ONE 7:e68397 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gross CG. 2010. Alfred Russell Wallace and the evolution of the human mind. Neuroscientist 16:496–507 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gross CG. 2012. Disgrace: on Marc Hauser. The Nation Jan. 9–16 [Google Scholar]
  39. Grossman R. 1993. Machine designed to find plagiarism winds up wrecking inventors' careers. Chicago Tribune May 13 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gunsalus CK. 1998. How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards. Sci. Eng. Ethics 4:51–63 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hilts PJ. 1991. Nobelist apologizes for defending research paper with faulty data. New York Times May 4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hilts PJ. 1993a. Institutes of Health close fraud investigation unit. New York Times May 5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hilts PJ. 1993b. Ideas & Trends: why whistle-blowers can seem a little crazy. New York Times June 13 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hixson J. 1976. The Patchwork Mouse New York: Doubleday [Google Scholar]
  45. Hoke F. 1993. HHS pressed to reverse whistleblowers' reassignment. The Scientist June 28 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hoke F. 1995a. On their own: Stewart and Feder persist with misconduct inquiries. The Scientist Feb. 6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hoke F. 1995b. Veteran whistleblowers advise other would-be “ethical resisters” to carefully weigh personal consequences before taking action. The Scientist May 5 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hunt M. 1981. A fraud that shook the world of science. New York Times Magazine Nov. 1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Judson HF. 2004. The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science Orlando, FL: Harcourt [Google Scholar]
  50. Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ. 1992. A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad. Med. 67:769–75 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kevles DJ. 1998. The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
  52. Kligyte V, Marcy RT, Sevier ST, Godfrey ES, Mumford MD. 2008. A qualitative approach to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training development: identification of metacognitive strategies. Sci. Eng. Ethics 14:3–31 [Google Scholar]
  53. Knox R. 1983. The Harvard fraud case: Where does the problem lie?. JAMA 249:1797–991802–7 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kochan CA, Budd JM. 1992. The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee case. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 43:488–93 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kohn A. 1986. False Prophets Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  56. Lock S, Wells F, Farthing F. 2001. Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research London: BMJ Books, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lubalin JS, Ardini ME, Matheson JL. 1995. Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases Washington, DC: Res. Triangle Inst https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf [Google Scholar]
  58. Macrina FL. 2005. Scientific Integrity Herndon, VA: ASM Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Madlock-Brown CR, Eichmann D. 2015. The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Sci. Eng. Ethics 21:127–37 [Google Scholar]
  60. Margraf J. 2015. Zur Lage der Psychologie. Psychol. Rundsch. 66:1–30 [Google Scholar]
  61. Martin B. 2013. Whistleblowing: A Practical Guide Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publ. [Google Scholar]
  62. McCain K. 1995. Mandating sharing: journal policies in the natural sciences. Sci. Comm. 16:403–31 [Google Scholar]
  63. Merton RK. 1957. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. Soc. Rev. 22:635–59 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mervis J. 1986. Study sharpens debate on role of co-authors. The Scientist Nov. 17 [Google Scholar]
  65. Monastersky R. 2008. NIH punished scientist who had called for open records. The Chronicle of Higher Education Oct. 22 [Google Scholar]
  66. Moran NC. 1985. Report of ad hoc committee to evaluate research of Dr. John R. Darsee at Emory University. Minerva 23:276–305 [Google Scholar]
  67. Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG. 2006. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?. Med. J. Aust. 185:152–54 [Google Scholar]
  68. Natl. Acad. Sci 2009. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  69. Neugebauer O. 1875. A History of Mathematical Astronomy Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  70. Newton RR. 1977. The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. NIH (Natl. Inst. Health) 2009. Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research Bethesda, MD: NIH http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html [Google Scholar]
  72. NSF (Natl. Sci. Found.) 1996. Research Misconduct Arlington, VA: NSF https://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf [Google Scholar]
  73. NSF (Natl. Sci. Found.) 2009. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Arlington, VA: NSF http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp [Google Scholar]
  74. O'Toole M. 1991. The whistle-blower and the train wreck. New York Times April 12 [Google Scholar]
  75. O'Toole M. 1993. Silencing the dissenters: an unwise, ignominious move. The Scientist May 17 [Google Scholar]
  76. ORI (Off. Res. Integr.) 1995. ORI Guidelines for Institutions and Whistleblowers: Responding to Possible Retaliation Against Whistleblowers in Extramural Research. Rockville, MD: US Dep. Health Human Serv http://ori.hhs.gov/guidelines-whistleblowers [Google Scholar]
  77. ORI (Off. Res. Integr.) 2011. Definition of Research Misconduct. Rockville, MD: US Dep. Health Human Serv http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct [Google Scholar]
  78. Penslar RL. 1995. Research Ethics Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Powledge T. 1987. Stewart-Feder (finally) in print. The Scientist Feb. 9 [Google Scholar]
  80. Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL, Evans S, Geller NL. et al. 2000. Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. Control. Clin. Trials 21:415–27 [Google Scholar]
  81. Rennie D, Gunsalus CK. 2008. What is research misconduct?. Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research S Lock, F Wells, F Farthing 29–52 London: BMJ Books, 4th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  82. Resnik DB, Dinse GE. 2012. Do U.S. research institutions meet or exceed federal mandates for instruction in responsible conduct of research? A national survey. Acad. Med. 87:1237–42 [Google Scholar]
  83. Rivlin S. 2004. Scientific Misconduct and Its Cover-Up Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker [Google Scholar]
  84. Sarasohn J. 1993. Science on Trial New York: St. Martin's Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Servick K. 2014. Researcher files lawsuit over anonymous PubPeer comments. Science http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2014/10/researcher-files-lawsuit-over-anonymous-pubpeer-comments [Google Scholar]
  86. Shamoo AE, Resnik DB. 2003. Responsible Conduct of Research New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  87. Siskin M, Roychowdhury V. 2006. Do you sincerely want to be cited? Or: Read before you cite. Significance 3:179–81 [Google Scholar]
  88. Sokal AD. 1996. Transgressing the boundaries: toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Soc. Text 46/:217–52 [Google Scholar]
  89. Steen RG. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud?. J. Med. Ethics 37:113–17 [Google Scholar]
  90. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. 2013. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?. PLOS ONE 8:e68397 [Google Scholar]
  91. Steneck NH. 2007. ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off. [Google Scholar]
  92. Stewart WW, Feder N. 1987. The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature 325:207–14 [Google Scholar]
  93. Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Louis KS. 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. Am. Sci. 81:542–53 [Google Scholar]
  94. Titus SL, Wells JA, Rhoades LJ. 2008. Repairing research integrity. Nature 19:453980–82 [Google Scholar]
  95. Tomasello M, Call J. 2011. Methodological challenges in the study of primate cognition. Science 334:1227–28 [Google Scholar]
  96. US House Rep 1981. Fraud in biomedical research. Hearings before Committee on Science and Technology. Subcomm. Investig. Overs., 97th Congr. 1st sess Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off. [Google Scholar]
  97. Wade N. 1981. A diversion of the quest for truth. Science 211:1022–25 [Google Scholar]
  98. Wade N. 1988. Ideas & Trends: looking hard at science's self-scrutiny. New York Times Aug. 21 [Google Scholar]
  99. Wadman M. 2008. Department of beams in the eye. Nature News Blog Oct. 23. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2008/10/department_of_beams_in_the_eye.html [Google Scholar]
  100. Wagner E, Williams P. 2011. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J. Med. Ethics 37:567–70 [Google Scholar]
  101. Wandell BA, Rokem A, Perry LM, Schaefer G, Dougherty RF. 2015. Data management to support reproducible research. arXiv1502.06900
  102. Weiner JS. 1955. The Piltdown Forgery London: Oxford [Google Scholar]
  103. Wells JA. 2008. Final Report: Observing and Reporting Suspected Misconduct in Biomedical Research Washington, DC: Gallup Org http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/gallup_finalreport.pdf [Google Scholar]
  104. Westfall RS. 1973. Newton and the fudge factor. Science 179:751–58 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error