Publications 2014, 2(3), 61-70; doi:10.3390/publications2030061

Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology

1email, 1email and 1,2,* email
Received: 28 February 2014; in revised form: 26 June 2014 / Accepted: 27 June 2014 / Published: 3 July 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract: This article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, detection, punishment, and publication of a retraction notice, all contribute to the number of retractions and, hence, will result in biased estimates. Self-report measures, as well as analyses of retractions, are additionally affected by the absence of a consistent definition of misconduct. This problem of definition is addressed further as stemming from a lack of generally valid definitions both on the level of measuring misconduct and on the level of scientific practice itself. Because science is an innovative and ever-changing endeavor, the meaning of misbehavior is permanently shifting and frequently readdressed and renegotiated within the scientific community. Quantitative approaches (i.e., statistics) alone, thus, are hardly able to accurately portray this dynamic phenomenon. It is argued that more research on the different processes and definitions associated with misconduct and its detection and sanctions is needed. The existing quantitative approaches need to be supported by qualitative research better suited to address and uncover processes of negotiation and definition.
Keywords: scientific misconduct; scientific retractions; scientific fraud; criminology; labeling theory; methodology
PDF Full-text Download PDF Full-Text [191 KB, uploaded 3 July 2014 13:41 CEST]

Export to BibTeX |

MDPI and ACS Style

Hesselmann, F.; Wienefoet, V.; Reinhart, M. Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology. Publications 2014, 2, 61-70.

AMA Style

Hesselmann F, Wienefoet V, Reinhart M. Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology. Publications. 2014; 2(3):61-70.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hesselmann, Felicitas; Wienefoet, Verena; Reinhart, Martin. 2014. "Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology." Publications 2, no. 3: 61-70.

Publications EISSN 2304-6775 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert