Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Definition of Research Misconduct
- Non-norm-compliant conduct: According to Mayntz [23] research misconduct is when one of the norms of the research system is violated intentionally or negligently.
- Intentional misconduct: Science is undertaken in a culture in which the intention (even legally) makes a big difference to the moral assessment [1]. Accordingly, it is frequently stressed that it must be possible to attribute intention to misconduct; generally speaking, it is not a case of unintentional error or carelessness during research or the interpretation of the findings [24]. Scientific research is always prone to error (particularly where research is innovative or cutting-edge) [1]. Science is even closely associated with the right to use fallible trial and error, to take risks and unrecognized (unorthodox or intuitive) routes in research, even to have imbalance and incompleteness: simply to attempt to find out the truth [25].However, if a scientist’s work is flawed and his conduct could be considered grossly negligent, even unintentional faults are deemed to be misconduct [16]. Misconduct can even arise when the researcher is completely convinced that his distorted or selective interpretation is correct [23].
- Research with significant consequences: For Fuchs and Westervelt [16], a necessary requirement for classifying conduct as deviant is that it is associated with a significant effect on the research and its results. Minor transgressions which do not have an impact on the process of building scientific knowledge should therefore not be classified as misconduct.
- Academic research: Taylor [26] points out that a number of behaviors which are considered misconduct in academic research are common practice in industrial research (such as using other people’s unpatented ideas for a company’s own commercial purposes).
3. The Manifestations of Research Misconduct
4. The Extent of Research Misconduct
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mayntz, R. Betrug in der Wissenschaft—Randerscheinung oder wachsendes Problem? (MPIfG Working Paper 99/4); Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung: Köln, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Kreutzberg, G.W. The rules of good science—Preventing scientific misconduct is the responsibility of all scientists. EMBO Rep. 2004, 5, 330–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapin, S. A social history of truth: civility and science in seventeenth-century England; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Ziman, J. Real science. What it is, and what it means; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Luhmann, N. Trust and Power; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Zuckerman, H. The sociology of science. In Handbook of sociology, 2nd ed.; Smelser, N.J., Ed.; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1989; pp. 511–574. [Google Scholar]
- Couzin, J. Scientific fraud. Science 2006, 314, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bornmann, L.; Nast, I.; Daniel, H.-D. Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics 2008, 77, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyranoski, D. Verdict: Hwang's human stem cells were all fakes. Nature 2006, 439, 122–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zankl, H. Fälscher, Schwindler, Scharlatane. Betrug in Forschung und Wissenschaft; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2003; p. 286. [Google Scholar]
- Antonelli, M.; Sandroni, C. Hydroxyethyl starch for intravenous volume replacement: More harm than benefit. JAMA 2013, 309, 723–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafer, S.L. Shadow of doubt. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 112, 498–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callaway, E. Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature 2011, 479, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaFollette, M.C. The evolution of the “Scientific Misconduct” issue: an historical overview. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 2000, 224, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garfield, E. Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature. J. Inf. Sci. 2004, 30, 119–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, S.; Westervelt, S.D. Fraud and trust in science. Perspect. Biol. Med. 1996, 39, 248–269. [Google Scholar]
- Gilbert, F.J.; Denison, A.R. Research misconduct. Clin. Radiol. 2003, 58, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buzzelli, D.E. The definition of misconduct in science—a view from NSF. Science 1993, 259, 584–585 and 647–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal Policy on research misconduct. Available online: http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html (accessed on December 14 2007).
- Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. Zum Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten in den Hochschulen; HRK: Bonn, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Fanelli, D. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 2013, 494, 149–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popper, K.R. The logic of scientific discovery, 2nd ed.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1961; p. 479. [Google Scholar]
- Mayntz, R. Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten: Formen, Faktoren und Unterschiede zwischen Wissenschaftsgebieten. In Ethos der Forschung - Ethics of Research; Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Ed.; Max-Planck-Gesellschaft: München, Germany, 1999; pp. 57–72. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, M.F. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. J. Higher Educ. 1994, 65, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulze-Fielitz, H. Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen von Ombuds- und Untersuchungsverfahren zur Aufklärung wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens. In Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten - Erfahrungen von Ombudsgremien – Tagungsbericht; German Research Foundation (DFG) and ombudsman of DFG, Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2004; pp. 19–40. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, I. Academia's 'misconduct' is acceptable to industry. Nature 2005, 436, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management of Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007; p. 293. [Google Scholar]
- Prewitt, K. The public and science policy. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1982, 7, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Peer review. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: London, UK, 2002.
- Helton-Fauth, W.; Gaddis, B.; Scott, G.; Mumford, M.; Devenport, L.; Connelly, S.; Brown, R. A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work. Account. Res. 2003, 10, 205–228. [Google Scholar]
- Merton, R.K. Entwicklung und Wandel von Forschungsinteressen. Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftssoziologie; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Balaram, P. Plagiarism: a spreading infection. Curr. Sci. 2005, 88, 1353–1354. [Google Scholar]
- Rossner, M. How to guard against image fraud. The Scientist 2006, 20, 24. [Google Scholar]
- Merton, R.K. Die Priorität bei wissenschaftlichen Entdeckungen: Ein Kapitel in der Wissenschaftssoziologie. In Wissenschaftssoziologie - Wissenschaftliche Entwicklung als sozialer Prozess; Weingart, P., Ed.; Athenäum Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1972; pp. 121–164. [Google Scholar]
- Cameron, C.; Zhao, H.; McHugh, M.K. Perspective: publication ethics and the emerging scientific workforce: understanding "plagiarism" in a global context. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2012, 87, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stegemann-Boehl, S. Fehlverhalten von Forschern: eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der biomedizinischen Forschung im Rechtsvergleich USA-Deutschland; Ferdinand Enke Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Giles, J. Breeding cheats. Nature 2007, 445, 242–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Marzouki, S.; Roberts, I.; Marshall, T.; Evans, S. The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2005, 26, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vries, R.; Anderson, M.S.; Martinson, B.C. Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 2006, 1, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odling-Smee, L.; Giles, J.; Fuyuno, I.; Cyranoski, D.; Marris, E. Where are they now? Nature 2007, 445, 244–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trute, H.-H. Das Ombudsverfahren als. Instrument zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis – Erfahrungen, Probleme, Perspektiven. In Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten—Erfahrungen von Ombudsgremien – Tagungsbericht; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft und Ombudsman der DFG, Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2004; pp. 3–12. [Google Scholar]
- Ombudsman der DFG. Jahresbericht 2012 an den Senat der DFG und an die Öffentlichkeit; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): Bonn, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE report 2005; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Harleston, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Office of Research Integrity. Annual Report 2006; Office of Research Integrity (ORI): Rockville, ML, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kornfeld, D.S. Research misconduct: the search for a remedy. Acad. Med. 2012, 87, 877–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franzen, M.; Rödder, S.; Weingart, P. Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. EMBO Rep. 2007, 8, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weingart, P. Öffentlichkeit der Wissenschaft—Betrug in der Wissenschaft. In Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten—Erfahrungen von Ombudsgremien—Tagungsbericht; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft und Ombudsman der DFG, Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2004; pp. 41–49. [Google Scholar]
- Diekmann, A. Betrug und Täuschung in der Wissenschaft. Datenfälschung, Diagnoseverfahren, Konsequenzen. Swiss J. Sociol. 2005, 31, 7–29. [Google Scholar]
- Chubin, D.E. Misconduct in research—an issue of science policy and practice. Minerva 1985, 23, 175–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weingart, P. Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft; Velbrück Wissenschaft: Weilerswist, Germany, 2001; p. 397. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia-Berthou, E.; Alcaraz, C. Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2004, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pearson, H. Double check casts doubt on statistics in published papers. Nature 2004, 429, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pryor, E.R.; Habermann, B.; Broome, M.E. Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey. J. Med. Ethics 2007, 33, 365–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swazey, J.P.; Anderson, M.S.; Lewis, K.S. Ethical Problems in academic research. Am. Sci. 1993, 81, 542–553. [Google Scholar]
- Gillespie, G.W.; Chubin, D.E.; Kurzon, G.M. Experience with NIH peer review: researchers' cynicism and desire for change. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1985, 10, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, K.; Schreier, A.; Griffin, A.; Resnik, D. Research records and the resolution of misconduct allegations at research universities. Account. Res. 2007, 14, 57–71. [Google Scholar]
- Martinson, B.C.; Anderson, M.S.; de Vries, R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005, 435, 737–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanelli, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One 2009, 4, e5738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, G.V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysi. Educ. Res. 1976, 5, 3–8. [Google Scholar]
- Greenberg, B.G.; Abul-Ela, A.-L.A.; Simmons, W.R.; Horvitz, D.G. The unrelated question randomized response model: theoretical framework. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1969, 64, 520–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, S.L. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1965, 60, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- List, J.A.; Bailey, C.D.; Euzent, P.J.; Martin, T.L. Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Econ. Inq. 2001, 39, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanelli, D.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, in press. [Google Scholar]
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Bornmann, L. Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent. Publications 2013, 1, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications1030087
Bornmann L. Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent. Publications. 2013; 1(3):87-98. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications1030087
Chicago/Turabian StyleBornmann, Lutz. 2013. "Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent" Publications 1, no. 3: 87-98. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications1030087