Research misconduct—Definitions, manifestations and extent

Publications

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 87-98

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Fabrication and falsification of data; Misconduct; Plagiarism

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006544573     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23046775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/publications1030087     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Mayntz, R. Betrug in der Wissenschaft—Randerscheinung oder wachsendes Problem? (MPIfG Working Paper 99/4); Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung: Köln, Germany, 1999.
2. Kreutzberg, G.W. The rules of good science—Preventing scientific misconduct is the responsibility of all scientists. EMBO Rep. 2004, 5, 330–332.
3. Shapin, S. A social history of truth: civility and science in seventeenth-century England; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1994.
4. Ziman, J. Real science. What it is, and what it means; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
5. Luhmann, N. Trust and Power; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1979.
6. 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.
7. Couzin, J. Scientific fraud. Science 2006, 314, 1853.
8. 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.
9. Cyranoski, D. Verdict: Hwang's human stem cells were all fakes. Nature 2006, 439, 122–123.
10. Zankl, H. Fälscher, Schwindler, Scharlatane. Betrug in Forschung und Wissenschaft; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2003; p. 286.
11. Antonelli, M.; Sandroni, C. Hydroxyethyl starch for intravenous volume replacement: More harm than benefit. JAMA 2013, 309, 723–724.
12. Shafer, S.L. Shadow of doubt. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 112, 498–500.
13. Callaway, E. Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature 2011, 479, 15.
14. LaFollette, M.C. The evolution of the “Scientific Misconduct” issue: an historical overview. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 2000, 224, 211-215.
15. Garfield, E. Historiographic mapping of knowledge domains literature. J. Inf. Sci. 2004, 30, 119–145.
16. Fuchs, S.; Westervelt, S.D. Fraud and trust in science. Perspect. Biol. Med. 1996, 39, 248–269.
17. Gilbert, F.J.; Denison, A.R. Research misconduct. Clin. Radiol. 2003, 58, 499–504.
18. Buzzelli, D.E. The definition of misconduct in science—a view from NSF. Science 1993, 259, 584–585 and 647–648.
19. US Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal Policy on research misconduct. http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html (accessed on December 14 2007),
20. Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. Zum Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten in den Hochschulen; HRK: Bonn, Germany, 1998.
21. Fanelli, D. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 2013, 494, 149–149.
22. Popper, K.R. The logic of scientific discovery; 2nd ed.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1961; p. 479.
23. 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.
24. Fox, M.F. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. J. Higher Educ. 1994, 65, 298–309.
25. 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.
26. Taylor, I. Academia's 'misconduct' is acceptable to industry. Nature 2005, 436, 626.
27. Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management of Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007; p. 293.
28. Prewitt, K. The public and science policy. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1982, 7, 5–14.
29. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Peer review; Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: London, UK, 2002.
30. 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.
31. Merton, R.K. Entwicklung und Wandel von Forschungsinteressen. Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftssoziologie; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1985.
32. Balaram, P. Plagiarism: a spreading infection. Curr. Sci. 2005, 88, 1353–1354.
33. Rossner, M. How to guard against image fraud. The Scientist 2006, 20, 24.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Stegemann-Boehl, S. Fehlverhalten von Forschern: eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der biomedizinischen Forschung im Rechtsvergleich USA-Deutschland; Ferdinand Enke Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 1993.
37. Giles, J. Breeding cheats. Nature 2007, 445, 242–243.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Odling-Smee, L.; Giles, J.; Fuyuno, I.; Cyranoski, D.; Marris, E. Where are they now? Nature 2007, 445, 244–245.
41. 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.
42. Ombudsman der DFG. Jahresbericht 2012 an den Senat der DFG und an die Öffentlichkeit; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): Bonn, Germany, 2013.
43. Committee on Publication Ethics. The COPE report 2005; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Harleston, UK, 2005.
44. Office of Research Integrity. Annual Report 2006; Office of Research Integrity (ORI): Rockville, ML, USA, 2007.
45. Kornfeld, D.S. Research misconduct: the search for a remedy. Acad. Med. 2012, 87, 877–882.
46. Franzen, M.; Rödder, S.; Weingart, P. Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. EMBO Rep. 2007, 8, 3–7.
47. 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.
48. Diekmann, A. Betrug und Täuschung in der Wissenschaft. Datenfälschung, Diagnoseverfahren, Konsequenzen. Swiss J. Sociol. 2005, 31, 7–29.
49. Chubin, D.E. Misconduct in research—an issue of science policy and practice. Minerva 1985, 23, 175–202.
50. 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.
51. Garcia-Berthou, E.; Alcaraz, C. Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2004, 4, 13.
52. Pearson, H. Double check casts doubt on statistics in published papers. Nature 2004, 429, 490.
53. 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.
54. Swazey, J.P.; Anderson, M.S.; Lewis, K.S. Ethical Problems in academic research. Am. Sci. 1993, 81, 542–553.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Martinson, B.C.; Anderson, M.S.; de Vries, R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005, 435, 737–738.
58. Fanelli, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One 2009, 4, e5738.
59. Glass, G.V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis. Educ. Res. 1976, 5, 3–8.
60. 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.
61. Warner, S.L. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1965, 60, 63–69.
62. 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.
63. Fanelli, D.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, in press.