Measuring scientific misconduct—lessons from criminology

Publications

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 61-70

  Hesselmann, Felicitas ^a   Wienefoet, Verena ^a   Reinhart, Martin ^a,b  

^a Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ)   (Germany)

^b HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Criminology; Labeling theory; Methodology; Scientific fraud; Scientific misconduct; Scientific retractions

Indexed keywords

EID: 85051203625     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23046775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/publications2030061     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Porter, T.M. Trust in Numbers; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1996.
2. Biderman, A.D.; Reiss, A.J. On Exploring the “Dark Figure” of Crime. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 1967, 648, 1–15.
3. Budd, J.M.; Sievert, M.; Schultz, T.R. Phenomena of retraction. Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 1998, 280, 296.
4. Davis, P.M. The persistence of error: A study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. (JMLA) 2012, 100, 184–189.
5. Decullier, E.; Huot, L.; Samson, G.; Maisonneuve, H. Visibility of retractions: A cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Res. Notes 2013, 6, doi:10.1186/1756-0500-6-238.
6. Fanelli, D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med. 2013, 10, e1001563.
7. Fang, F.C.; Steen, R.G.; Casadevall, A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 17028–17033.
8. Foo, J.Y. A Retrospective Analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2011, 17, 459–468.
9. Furman, J.L.; Jensen, K.; Murray, F. Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 276–290.
10. Grieneisen, M.L.; Zhang, M.; von Elm, E. A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLoS One 2012, 7, e44118.
11. Nath, S.B.; Marcus, S.C.; Druss, B.G. Retractions in the research literature: Misconduct or mistakes? Med. J. Aust. 2006, 185, 152–154.
12. Redman, B.K.; Yarandi, H.N.; Merz, J.F. Empirical developments in retraction. J. Med. Ethics. 2008, 34, 807–809.
13. Steen, R.G. Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J. Med. Ethics 2011, 37, 249–253.
14. Black, D.J. Production of Crime Rates. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1970, 35, 733–748.
15. Boivin, R.; Cordeau, G. Measuring the impact of police discretion on official crime statistics: A research note. Police Q. 2011, 14, 186–203.
16. O’Brien, R.M. Police productivity and crime rates: 1973–1992. Criminology 1996, 34, 183–207.
17. Kirk, D.S. Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. J. Quant. Criminol. 2006, 22, 107–129.
18. Agnew, R.; Brezina, T. Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Control, 4th ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
19. Fanelli, D.; Tregenza, T. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS One 2009, 4, e5738.
20. Titus, S.L.; Wells, J.A.; Rhoades, L.J. Repairing Research Integrity. Nature 2008, 453, 980–982.
21. 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.
22. Atlas, M.C. Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. (JMLA) 2004, 92, 242–250.
23. Bosch, X.; Hernández, C.; Pericas, J.M.; Doti, P.; Marušić, A.; Manzoli, L. Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS One 2012, 7, e51928.
24. Resnik, D.; Peddada, S.; Brunson, W. Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Account. Res. 2009, 16, 254–267.
25. Resnik, D.; Patrone, D.; Peddada, S. Research Misconduct Policies of Social Science Journals and Impact Factor. Account. Res. 2010, 17, 79–84.
26. Enders, W.; Hoover, G.A. Whose line is it? Plagiarism in economics. J. Econ. Lit. 2004, 42, 487–493.
27. Wager, E.; Fiack, S.; Graf, C.; Robinson, A.; Rowlands, I. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. J. Med. Ethics 2009, 35, 348–353.
28. Williams, P.; Wager, E. Exploring Why and How Journal Editors Retract Articles: Findings from a Qualitative Study. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2013, 19, 1–11.
29. Elia, N.; Wager, E.; Tramèr, M.R.; Wray, K.B. Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS One 2014, 9, e85846.
30. Neale, A.V.; Dailey, R.K.; Abrams, J. Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2010, 16, 251–261.
31. Neale, A.V.; Northrup, J.; Dailey, R.; Marks, E.; Abrams, J. Correction and Use of Biomedical Literature Affected by Scientific Misconduct. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2007, 13, 5–24.
32. Resnik, D.B.; Dinse, G.E. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. J. Med. Ethics 2012, 39, 46–50.
33. Lappi-Seppälä, T. Penal policy in Scandinavia. In Crime, Punishment, and Politics in Comparative Perspective; Tonry, M., Ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007; Volume 36, pp. 217–295.
34. Lappi-Seppälä, T. Explaining imprisonment in Europe. Eur. J. Criminol. 2011, 8, 303–328.
35. Heckman, J.J. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 1979, 47, 153–161.
36. Macilwain, C. Scientific Misconduct: More Cops, More Robbers? Cell 2012, 149, 1417–1419.
37. Mongeon, P.; Larivière, V. The Collective Consequences of Scientific Fraud: An Anlysis of Biomedical Research; Gorraiz, J., Ed.; In Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetretrics; Austrian Institut of Technology: Vienna, Austria, 2013; pp. 1897–1899.
38. Steen, R.G. Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J. Med. Ethics 2011, 37, 113–117.
39. Bilbrey, E.; O’Dell, N.; Creamer, J. A novel rubric for rating the quality of retraction notices. Publications 2014, 2, 14–26.
40. Krohn, M.D.; Lizotte, A.J.; Phillips, M.D.; Thornberry, T.P.; Bell, K.A. Explaining Systematic Bias in Self-Reported Measures: Factors that Affect the Under-and Over-Reporting of Self-Reported Arrests. Justice Q. 2013, 30, 501–528.
41. Maxfield, M.G.; Luntz Weiler, B.; Spatz Widom, C. Comparing Self-Reports and Official Records of Arrest. J. Quant. Criminol. 2000, 16, 87–110.
42. Martinson, B.C.; Anderson, M.S.; de Vries, R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005, 435, 737–738.
43. Böhmer, S.; Neufeld, J.; Hinze, S.; Klode, C.; Hornbostel, S. Wissenschaftlerbefragung 2010. Forschungsbedingungen von Professorinnen und Professoren in Deutschland, iFQ-Working Paper No.8; Institut für Forschungsinformation und Qualitätssicherung: Bonn, Germany, 2011.
44. List, J.; Bailey, C.; Euzent, P.; Martin, T. Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Econ. Inq. 2001, 39, 162–170.
45. Gardner, W.; Lidz, C.W.; Hartwig, K.C. Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2005, 26, 244–251.
46. Geggie, D. A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud. J. Med. Ethics 2001, 27, 344–346.
47. Schwarz, N. Cognitive aspects of survey methodology. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2007, 21, 277–287.
48. Becker, H.S. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
49. Frow, E.K. Drawing a line: Setting guidelines for digital image processing in scientific journal articles. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2012, 42, 369–392.
50. Vaughan, D. The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster. Annu. Revie. Sociol. 1999, 25, 271–305.
51. Knorr-Cetina, K. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
52. Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
53. Collins, H.M. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992.
54. Gieryn, T.F. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 781–795.
55. Gieryn, T.F.; Figert, A.E. Scientists protect their cognitive authority: The status degradation ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt. In The Knowledge Society; Böhme, G., Stehr, N., Eds.; Sociology of the Sciences; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1986; pp. 67–86.
56. Gieryn, T.F. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999.
57. Flick, U. Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung; Rororo Rowohlts Enzyklopädie; Orig.-Ausg., vollst. überarb. und erw. Neuausg; Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl.: Reinbek bei Hamburg, Germany, 2007; Volume 55694.
58. Denzin, N.K.; Lincoln, Y.S. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005.
59. King, G.; Keohane, R.O.; Verba, S. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research; Princeton Paperbacks; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1994.
60. Pinch, T.J. Normal Explanations of The Paranormal: The Demarcation Problem and Fraud in Parapsychology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1979, 9, 329–348.