Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science

Rendiconti Lincei

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 369-382

  Carafoli, Ernesto ^a  

^a VENETIAN INSTITUTE OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Fraud; Misconduct; Plagiarism; Retractions; Statistical analysis

Indexed keywords

POPULATION STATISTICS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

FRAUD; GEOGRAPHICAL AREA; MISCONDUCT; OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS; PLAGIARISM; RETRACTIONS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; TECHNICAL MEASURES;

PUBLISHING;

EID: 84940720659     PISSN: 20374631     EISSN: 17200776     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12210-015-0415-4     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Baerlocher MO, O’ Brien J, Newton M, Gautam T, Noble J (2010) Data integrity, reliability and fraud in medical research. Eur J Intern Med 21:40–45
2. Begley CG (2013) Reproducibility: six red flags for suspected work. Nature 497:433–434
3. Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533
4. Bohannon J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342:60–63
5. Boultbee AH (1973) The fudge factor. Science 180:1118–1121
6. Broad W, Wade N (1982) Betrayers of truth. Frauds and deceits in the hall of science. Simon and Schuster, New York
7. Carafoli E (2013) A bizarre case of scientific fraud. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 441:529
8. Cokol M, Iossifov I, Rodriguez-Esteban R, Rzhetsky A (2007) How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Rep 8:422–423
9. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R (2008) Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep 9:42
10. 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
11. Errami M, Hicks JM, Fisher W, Trusty D, Wren JD, Long TC, Garner HR (2007) Déjà vu—a study of duplicate citations in medicine. Bioinformatics 24:243–249
12. Errami M, Sun Z, Long TC, George AC, Garner HR (2009) Déjà vu—a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucl Acids Res 37:D921–D924
13. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4:e5738
14. Fang FC, Casadevall A (2011) Retracted science and retraction index. Infect Immun 79:3855–3859
15. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:17028–17033
16. Fang FC, Bennett JW, Casadevall A (2013) Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. MBio 4:e00640–e00712
17. Feyerabend P (1975) Against method. New Left Books, London
18. Frankfurter A (2014) Vertrauen ist gut. Kontrolle ist besser, Frankfurt
19. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M (2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One 7:e44118
20. Hvistendahl M (2012) China’s publication bazaar. Science 342:1035–1039
21. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124
22. Ioannidis JPA (2008) Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19:640–648
23. Ioannidis JPA (2013) Biomarker failures. Clin Chem 59:202–204
24. John LK, Löwenstein G, Prelec D (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci 23:524–532
25. Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ (1992) A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad Med 67:769–775
26. LeBrain PA, Welles OG (2014) Cuckoo for cocoa puffs? The surgical and neoplastic role of cacao extract in breakfast cereals, Glob J Agric Agric Sci
27. Liu SV (2006) Top journal’s top retraction rates. Sci Ethics 1:91–93
28. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–738
29. Mazieres D, Kohler E (2005) Get me off your fucking mailing list. Int J Adv Comput Sci
30. Moran B, Hoover VG, Bestiale S (1997) Diffusioin in aperiodic Lorentz gas. Stat Phys 48:709–726
31. Munk-Jorgensen P (2010) Authors are not criminals and editors should not be policemen. Epidemiol Psichiat Soc 19:193–195
32. Price DJD (1963) Little science. Big science. Columbia University Press, New York 1963
33. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:712
34. Scheckman R (2013) How journals like nature, cell, and science are damaging science. The Guardian, 9 Dec
35. Sokal AD (1996a) Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Soc Text 46(47):2017–2052
36. Sokal AD (1996b) A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, May–June: 62–64
37. Steen RG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 37:249–253
38. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC (2013) Why has the number of scientific retraction increased? PLoS One 8:e68397
39. The Economist (2013a) How science goes wrong, London (October 19, 2013)
40. The Economist (2013b) Trouble at the lab, London (October 19, 2013)
41. Van Noorden R (2011) Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature 478:26–28
42. Westfall RS (1973) Newton and the fudge factor. Science 179:51–758
43. Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 5:e201