Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Failure to Replicate: A Sign of Scientific Misconduct?
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes

Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology

Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance, Schützenstraße 6a, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Publications 2014, 2(3), 61-70;
Received: 28 February 2014 / Revised: 26 June 2014 / Accepted: 27 June 2014 / Published: 3 July 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: scientific misconduct; scientific retractions; scientific fraud; criminology; labeling theory; methodology scientific misconduct; scientific retractions; scientific fraud; criminology; labeling theory; methodology
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, Verena Wienefoet, and Martin Reinhart. 2014. "Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology" Publications 2, no. 3: 61-70.

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop